Don't expect anyone on the SBS series Go Back To Where You Came From to change their mind about asylum seekers, writes Jonathan Green. But maybe that's the point.

Is there anything harder to change than a mind? Probably not.

Yet the hope and premise of Go Back seems to be that positions on asylum seekers, that most vexed of Australian political questions, might shift through exposure to the compelling force of profoundly sad personal experience.

That said, the burden of intellectual flexibility here is unevenly shared. It hardy seems likely that Catherine Deveny, Allan Asher or Imogen Bailey will be converted to the hard-arsed necessity of stopping the boats on their televised road to Kabul.

The viewer will, however, watch the progress of Peter Reith, Gary 'Angry' Anderson and Michael Smith with a greater expectation that this rude brush with refugee reality will soften and shift their thinking.

Not much sign of that. Here's Peter Reith, writing in the aftermath, elegantly combining utter certainty with political opportunism:

I learnt new things, but it did not change my mind; the person who has changed her mind recently on border security and boat people is Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Reith's position is telling. Of the six 'celebrities' featured in this second season of the show, he more than any of the others takes the risk of direct and challenging confrontation.

It's more than his principles and rhetoric that will be challenged: it's his actual past behaviour; his decisions as defence minister and in the cabinet of prime minister John Howard.

Reith is moved, clearly, by an encounter on the outskirts of Kabul with a man who was on the Tampa, who was transferred to Nauru, and whose application for asylum was eventually denied. And it is in Reith's response that we glimpse one of the terrible truths of this issue: that sincere fellow feeling is not in itself a path to a solution. Minds around this issue are too hard-set.

The casting is clever. In the six players, we see the full scope of the problem, from visceral resentment of boat-borne 'others' on one hand, to utterly unquestioning and welcoming compassion on the other. In the middle is political process, and the dull reality of having to tread between both extremes to deliver an implementable decision.

Which is where Reith stands, and as his response makes clear, the political reaction to the issue of asylum seekers is unlikely to be conditioned by an emotional reaction to the desperate plight of individuals. Yet, that seems the assumption of many watching Go Back To Where You Came From: that the emotional response should be sufficient to sway opinion and policy.

That doesn't seem to be happening to our six protagonists.

Things might have looked more hopeful with the sort of casting they used in season one of the show: ordinary people with no great stake in their publicly expressed opinions. That's different in series two. Now we have people with investment in their points of view; now we see the stubbornness, the intractability inherent in the debate.

What we see fleshed out is a microcosm that shows pretty clearly why this issue is so difficult. Peter Reith will not change his mind; Angry Anderson will not change his mind; Catherine Deveny will not change her mind; not because there are not possibilities in presenting people with direct evidence of suffering and its emotional appeal, but because our political discussion takes place on another plane entirely.

Our politics is not necessarily reality-based ... it is based around versions of reality that suit political imperatives. And it's set like stone in various shades of prejudice and practicality.

That seems to be the most likely thing that Go Back To Where You Came From will demonstrate ... just how deep and fixed the divide on the issue is. Two sides, poles apart; one motivated by compassion and quite probably guilt, the other by fear, distrust and quite possibly bigotry.

The great service done here might not be to present a tale of redemption - Angry Anderson offering his bed and barbecue to random Hazaras - but rather a portrait of blind, impossible division and of a gritty opportunist politics that exploits those fault lines and fails to find compromise; a politics that thrives on division more than consensus.

In that way, in all its stubbornly steadfast positions, the show is a true representation of the people we are, as true of the SBS six as it is of the other 21 million. We are a country deeply divided, and the compassion of three will not carry the whole.

It might just be that in watching, we end up disliking the mirror image that we see.

Jonathan Green is a former editor of The Drum and presenter ofSunday Extraon Radio National. View his full profile here.

murr40:

ThatFlemingGent:

30 Aug 2012 9:30:44am

No, they dont - it's a "Yellow Horde"-like lie and straw man argument that has no basis in reality, barring the insular fantasies of many right-wing xenophobes.

If you'd pay attention to their policies instead of merely knee-jerk reacting, you'll find that they're pushing for on-shore processing (which was the default before Howard's Liberal government) and to honour or codified human rights obligations (and no, seeking asylum is not illegal no matter how much certain members of the political commentariat would like it to be)

peter:

Dan:

30 Aug 2012 11:53:52am

based on what peter? I have just read the UNHCR Convention relating to the status of refugees. It says nothing about having to stop in the first country you come to. It also says that refugees havea "right not to be punished for illegal entry into the territory of a contracting State" (Article 31).

That means that Australia is in contravention of international law. In other words - our government is the one acting illegally.

mike:

somon:

30 Aug 2012 1:32:58pm

nice point, except he didn't say that

it is illegal under the convention to punish asylum seekers for illegal entry. mandatory detention is exactly that and the UN rapportuer has criticised australia's mandatory detention policy on this ground.

gnome:

30 Aug 2012 2:20:07pm

So somon- they can't be punished for - what exactly?- ILLEGAL ENTRY-??- does it really say that in the Convention??

We don't have mandatory detention anyway. They are free to leave anytime they want. Though they aren't free to enter Australia we will gladly assist them to go anywhere else in the world they are entitled to go.

I understand the limit of our obligation to illegal entrants (Convention terminology remember) is not to return them to the place they are fleeing from. Everything else is a bonus.

somon:

30 Aug 2012 5:35:46pm

lol. and since war was never declared the vietnam police action was not a war. and since aboriginals were not officially people then those killed in massacres were just culled. and since the carbon reduction legislation is a trading scheme with t a floor price it is not a tax.

Jaye:

Rhonda:

30 Aug 2012 10:26:58pm

I agree. The UN is ineffectual. Its limited processing of refugees has allowed the numbers to build up to an unacceptable and insurmountable level. Viewing the 'tent city' that people are 'existing' (or dying) in, one wonders why even some basic supports haven't been constructed there.

I seem to recall an ad calling for donations which said $300 would provide a water tap for a whole village. What's going on?

mike:

30 Aug 2012 5:27:23pm

Is being mandatorily detained at international airports so your passport and luggage can be checked before entering a foreign country "punishment" in your view? What do you think would happen in any country if you arrived without a passport?

somon:

30 Aug 2012 2:36:28pm

It is not illegal under domestic law to enter australia without a valid visa to seek asylum. it is not even illegal to enter australia with no documents and not claim asylum. you wont be charged, you will just be deported.

It is legal under domestic law to claim asylum and there are very extensive legal processes set up to cater for it.

Dogs Balaclavas 150 million :

MichaelToo:

30 Aug 2012 6:39:48pm

Yes it does, Dan.

The actual wording is: "These agreements are ? based on the notion of safe, or first, country of asylum ... that asylum is afforded when an asylum seeker first arrives in a country in which asylum has been granted as an asylum-seeker or a refugee".

It also goes on to state that moving on after entering a country of safe haven renders the traveller a "forum shopper" and not an asylum seeker or a refugee.

Forrest Gardener:

Simmo:

31 Aug 2012 8:31:27am

You don't call being locked in a prison with no defined sentence a punishment? Define how this is any better than the prison sentences given to criminals?

Be honest. This isnt about 'processing' or 'security' since this country lets so many other people in. It is about posturing over who gets the combination of red neck and lower north shore xenophobe vote. Make a big fuss and noise over here so you can't see what is going on over there. Oldest trick in the book, politicians are laughing at you as they get all of the benefit of their cheap labour providing big Australia policies but at the same time can look tough by demonising a minute section of the arrivals.

You don't think that rorting 457 visas is a worse problem? Media doesn't want you to think that and hence why the interminable coverage of assylum seekers and why you are writing that men, women and children should be locked up when they have done nothing wrong.

Marilyn:

Thursday:

30 Aug 2012 3:05:54pm

@ Peter - you say that refugees should have to stay in the first country they reach after fleeing danger? That's a bit rough on countries like Pakistan (bordering Afghanistan). Why are refugees morally their responsibility and not ours? The vast majority of refugees in the world are in developing nations bordering troubled regions, do you honestly think that they should have to deal will all displaced people?

john woodie:

30 Aug 2012 9:43:34am

Not bad for a partial solution. Unless we manage to get the greens and progressives to pay for the costs all that happens is that us longsuffering taxpayers shell out for the greens and progressives's delicate feeling. Something like the brisbane flood levy applied only to supporters of the plan would bed the go!After all the greens and progressives would have no objection to putting their money where their mouth is!

creme brulee:

30 Aug 2012 10:43:12am

"longsuffering taxpayers"

Very few taxpayers are suffering, whether for long or short periods. The incessant bleating of people who think they are doing it tough because they can't afford to put a deck in their backyard is sickening.

There are people in Australia who are doing it tough, but they are not usually taxpayers, because the really do not have enough money for basics, as opposed to having enough money to live at the standard they would like.

As far as I am concerned, the only long suffering going on about Australians is the long suffering involved in selfish people bleating on about 'longsuffering taxpayers'.

rougeelephant:

libertarian:

30 Aug 2012 11:47:13am

But in Western societies like ours people work hard, between 40 hours and 80 hours a week. Most real taxpayers do anyway. Then they go home and do all the work associated with looking after their families. They deserve to have a deck in their backyard. It's not sickening. People who pay little or no net tax and then expect taxpayers to pay for so much are sickening.

creme brulee:

30 Aug 2012 1:10:21pm

Libertarian, they may well 'deserve' to have a deck in their backyard. The issue though, is the self-pity that pervades cliches like long-suffering. If you want to know what long suffering is, perhaps you should watch 'Go Back to where you came from'.

It is the civil society built on the proceeds from taxpayers that builds the modern country that we are so happy to live in. Taxpayers get a lot for their money and they, for the most part, do not suffer because they are asked to pay tax. In fact, they are being asked to pay less tax than ever before in Australia's history.

So get real. Have your deck if you want to. Work 80 hours a week to pay for it if you want to. But can the ridiculously inappropriate self-pity. When you work 80 hours a week to grow enough rice or grain to just keep your family fed, then talk about long suffering.

bobtonnor:

30 Aug 2012 1:45:11pm

the reality of the matter is this, if you earn the average aussie wage of around $60K you are in the top 1% of the worlds richest people, do you deserve to have a deck? i dont know, but what i do know is that by a great deal of luck you live in one of the worlds richest countries, so in my opinion i think we should be a little more compassionate towards our fellow men and women and not whine and whinge about doing it tough because if you earn the average aussie wage and you do whine then you need a bloody good reality check. A hard day is not working in the hot sun for 12 hours, that is a breeze compared to have to flee everything you own to save your skin, wake up.

maj:

30 Aug 2012 3:32:34pm

You show true compassion Bob. Can you tell me EXACTLY how many of the world 45 Million refugees you are happy to live in Australia? And how many wil be living in your house. This is not about compassion or refugees, its about having a sustainable economy and sustainable environment that can serve australia well both now and in the future. Please also remember Bob that you dont like it here, are free to give all your money to the millions of refugees any time you want. Dont try to tell me I have to do the same.

Horrocks:

no but there are plenty of Australians who are doing it toughm homeless etc plus Aborigines who live in deplorable conditions which should be rectified BEFORE we take anybody else in.

The government should be spending the money on our Aborigines before others, imagine what it could do for the life expectancy if this money spent on refugees was spent here in Native health areas first. Remember the old saying charity begins at home

Simmo:

31 Aug 2012 8:46:58am

I agree with this statement. We actually shouldn't be collectively sleeping in our beds soundly while there are people living in the poverty I have seen in remote camps. This should be the no 1 issue in this country and nothing else should be done until this is fixed. This is also a much bigger problem than pretence about deaths at sea for a few hundred people.

Unfortunately for the aborigine peoples they are no more likely to get the 'anti-illegals' people's sympathy. The home grown destitute ethnic minority is no better off. Why should people from overseas expect to be treated any better?

el-viejo:

30 Aug 2012 2:29:01pm

The issue has nothing to do with your backyard deck or mine. The cost of dealing with the asylum seekers has blown out to about $5 billion since 2008.

Coincidentally, $5b is just about what the National Disability Insdurance Scheme would cost, and is close to the cost estimate of adding dentistry to Medicare. At the moment the Government does not have money to implement either. Some backyard deck indeed.

Thursday:

30 Aug 2012 3:14:22pm

@el-viejo

The cost is largely due to the fact that Australia opts for the most expensive methods of refugee processing (offshore and remote). Community settlement is by far the cheapest, but wildly unpopular with the Australian public. Our xenophobia costs us, but we're not prepared to give it up yet.

el-viejo:

30 Aug 2012 4:11:49pm

Yes and no.

1. There is also a significant cost component of publicly funding extensive legal assistance and advice to applicants, including all three tiers of appeal. Appealing anything all the way to the High Court is notoriously expensive. In the case of proactive refugee lawyers wishing to obtain High Court rulings in test cases, all these costs are met by the taxpayer (yes, I know that some of the lawyers work pro bono, but there are other costs galore associated with these cases).

2. Mandatory detention was introduced in 1992 by Gerry Hand, the Immigration Minister in the Keating Government, after he was advised that once the applicants go into the community, they immediately receive significant coaching, so that sifting of wheat from chaff becomes very difficult or impossible. Hand found that once people went into the community, the Immigration Department was no longer getting their true stories, but instead was fed composites of previously successful cases, nearly impossible to investigate, confirm or refute. This flaw persists, albeit to a lesser degree, to this day.

3. Successive Governments have had vividly in mind the longstanding UK situation where the British Government simply loses track of very large numbers of people in the community before decisions affecting them are made. This number currently stand at about 275,000 people and is referred to by the British MPs as the United Kingdom Border Agency Bermuda Triangle. The ineptitude of UKBA in tracking people released into the community has eventualy led to the abolition of that agency, disciplinary dismissal of its Head, and much name-calling of him in the UK Parliament ('rogue civil servant' and worse).

Simmo:

31 Aug 2012 8:56:37am

And yet the world (and certainly the UK) keeps on turning despite the large numbers they have lost. One thing to bear in mind is that clearly these people are no burden to the tax payer as they can't stay beneath the radar and collect the host of benefits I imagine you believe they collect.

So what is the problem? The UK is far beyond the simple concerns about 'way of life' and 'the 1/4 acre plot'. If the British economy can afford to swallow that many people without any burden to the taxpayer they are obviously self supporting 'can-do' folks.

Shebs:

30 Aug 2012 5:16:33pm

We jail them because they enter the country illegally. They can then claim asylum, but that takes more than their word. There are genuine scammers and security risks, like the lot arrested in Bangkok recently.

Bleeding hearts like you would happily bring them all and turn this country into the same cesspits they claim to have escaped from. Coming from a poor country does not entitle you to lie and gain entry here, destroy your documents or use people smugglers.

If they are genuinely feeling persecution, I have no issues, but most lie about their provenance, and are shopping for a country that will take them, whether it wants to or not, and our generous welfare system.

John Coochey:

Joel:

30 Aug 2012 10:55:54am

I'm not a Greens supporter, but onshore processing is actually cheaper.

It might be the only thing I ever agree on with Clive Palmer, but he has a pretty sensible solution to this. Have the government instruct and pay for planes coming into the country from the south-east Asia region to give seats to those granted refugee status through the relevant embassy. Not a full solution, but does go a long way towards stopping people smuggling and unnecessary deaths. The plan at the moment isn't to stop the deaths, it's just to make them happen somewhere else where we can't see (and pay) for them, which is just ridiculous.

creme brulee:

Joel, it is cheaper per person but much more expensive, both in terms of the actual processing costs and the ongoing settlement costs, if the numbers are much higher.

Push and pull factors are both so strong at this time that the volumes will become unmanageable unless the flow of people coming this way is stemmed and managed better.

That is the simple dilemma that faces governments of either complexion in Australia. The Houston report offered the best way out that I have seen. It is a shame that the Opposition has chosen only to cherry pick the bits that reflect the past.

somon:

seriously, the numbers required for it to be "unmanageable" for australia would be in the several milllions at least. do you really think we are that hopeless.

I'm not saying we should aim for several million, or that we should resettle several million, but all these claims of hordes of refugees swamping us in unmanageable numbers are nonsense.

it is well within our capabilities to set up several camps of tens or maybe a couple of hundred thousand each. we are capable of that kind of response if it is necessary. I'm not sure what kind of numbers you are envisioning for it to be "unmanageable".

el-viejo:

somon: "I'm not saying we should aim for several million, or that we should resettle several million, but all these claims of hordes of refugees swamping us in unmanageable numbers are nonsense."

Okay. Please propose a number of people to be resettled, as you see fit. Once you have made up your mind on that, please tell me what we should do when the number you have nominated is reached or exceeded.

At this point in time it looks like the holding capacity of Manus Is. and Nauru might be exceeded before they open.

somon:

30 Aug 2012 3:05:43pm

i have proposed a number that I think would have an affect on boat arrivals below. i proposed an intake to up to 60,000 per annum (but I think 30,000 may be enough) and a concommitant decrease in skilled migration to maintain managemeable total migration. hopefully with aggreement from our nearby countries to accept a smaller number each for resettlement.

i also point out that increased refugee intake is likely to be temporary, as the vietnam crisis was. i do not pretend that australia can solve the world's refugee problems, but we can make a substantial conrtibution to our regional refugee problem.

There is also a distuintion between resettlement numbers and refugee numbers. we are simply obliged and should accept all refugees that arrive here, but not necessarily for resettlement here.

Shebs:

30 Aug 2012 5:21:29pm

Water

Power

Waste disposal

Roads

Public Transport

Housing

Jobs

Education

Health

These are just some of the areas where Australia already struggles, or has in recent memory, and the plague of Labor governments that held the states for years did their utmost to NOT fix many of them. Things like health and education certainly also could not cope with a mass influx, even spread out over several years.

somon:

30 Aug 2012 6:37:24pm

We I turn on my tap water always comes out. When I flip a switch, my lights turn on. Every week my rubbish is colelcted, I drive to work on good roads, my home is adequate, even luxurious by international standards. I am not even slightly unusual for people living in Australia.

Our health and education systems are world class, we have full employment, if unemployment were much lower it would be danaging to our economy. I can admit our public transport leaves a bit to be desired..

Australia is so far from struggling.

We already cope with 170,000 a year. Less than 1% of our population. "Mass influx" is not an accurate description. Neither is "struggling". We are doing well, for goodness sake.

IH8SPIN:

31 Aug 2012 8:49:24am

Well said Shebs - and look - not one reply to your comment -

What I want to know is - When do the hand outs stop - all the assistance given - the accomodation given - the free training - the fast tracking of assistance packages and the like which are never ever discussed in the public domain. Is there a time limit on it - I will bet there is not - due to our unrivalled compassion

Make it fair for all Australians to access exactly the same degrees of assistance on all quarters - then and only then will I become a little more compassionate

Maybe all the new arrivals could be used to build new dams. on the job training

dman:

30 Aug 2012 1:53:29pm

So if offshore processing is managing numbers, then it is doing it by deterrent, i.e. punishing people for seeking asylum, which contravenes international law.

I think that is the whole point about offshore processing, it is a form of punishment for seeking asylum. Having said that I haven't seen any evidence of massive numbers coming or not just because of the processing method. There's so many factors involved in influencing these numbers.

At the end of the day though, why does it matter where they are processed? The assessment rules haven't changed, so most genuine refugees will end up in Australia anyway. i.e. offshore processing doesn't aim to reduce numerbs of refugees entering australia!

I'd rather we got over our issues with poor non-white people and put the money that will be wasted on offshore processing into something worthwhile.

Peter of Melbourne:

30 Aug 2012 10:15:22pm

Did you see Ethiopia providing free 1st world housing, amenities, education, health services and a nice dole cheque to every country shopper who showed up on their doorstep - NO.

Why, because Ethiopia, a 3rd world hellhole, cannot control its borders, has no choice in the matter and most salient of all is actually taking in real refugees and not those who can afford to pay people smugglers for a quick boat trip out of Indonesian territorial waters before screaming for the RAN to come pick them up like a good little taxi service.

Once again Marilyn you are trying to project your own little guilt trip onto the rest of us.. I for one don't give a damn I have my own family to worry about and their future. If people like you have their way we will be a 3rd world hellhole in a heartbeat.

frangipani:

30 Aug 2012 12:56:29pm

@Joel - if Clive actually said that, then he doesn't understand our refugee program at all. Our Embassies do assess people for refugee status, and do arrange for those accepted to be issued visas and flown to Australia. The thing is, we have a strict quota on the number we accept.

We could process a lot more if the quotas were higher, but they'd have to be astronomical to make a dent in the 200,000 or so in the region right now, to mention those on their way. I wonder if Clive would be in favour of upping the target from 14,000 to 140,000?

Shebs:

30 Aug 2012 5:18:56pm

That will not prevent people from sailing, nor will it stop boats from sinking, as those unable to be processed officially, or that have been refused, know that there is SFA Australia can do once they have boarded a boat and called for a naval taxi.

lazarus:

30 Aug 2012 11:30:02am

And how about those that run & support the law and order auction that is involved in every election pay for the upkeep of of all the extra prisoners these auctions give us. There is no reduction in reoffending because the basic conditions underlying the reoffending are not addressed but hell that doesn't matter does it. And while we are at it why do my tax dollars go to pay family tax benefit I don't use and for cemetries I don't use and I think our defence budget is a bit too much so I don't want to pay that either. Let everyone else pay for everything, I don't want to pay any tax.

AJ:

Jimmy:

30 Aug 2012 11:19:35am

The childish delusion that to accept any more refugees ,you need to accept the whole words total45 million population is really starting to get old .. We can accommodate more .. Get over it !It does not mean that we have to accept them all . Secondly , not one person has ever proposed we should take the entire wolds population of refugees .Oh .. And for the delusionists who need a figure proposed . 100,000 could be a start .

china:

30 Aug 2012 12:24:26pm

Good start Jimmy.Now would you care to put a figure on that number that you think we should increase to?And after you have done that, would you then outline how we should deal with arrivals past that number?IMO we need an enforceable policy. How many we actually accept is a seperate question but we need some methodical way of managing the process. ATM we seem utterly at the mercy of other people.

mike:

30 Aug 2012 12:40:17pm

So what would you do if after taking in 100,000 a few thousand more show up? What would you do with them? Send them back where they came from - i.e., Indonesia or Malaysia? Or just accept them too? In which case you'd really be suggesting open borders.

somon:

30 Aug 2012 1:44:45pm

well this happens a lot all over the world. we are obliged to keep them safe (often in refugee camps, heard of those?). they stay there until they are able to be resettled either here or another country.

maj:

30 Aug 2012 3:47:26pm

Stop telling me i'm 'obliged ' to take in refugees. There are many aussies I know who already have a harder more frugal live living with pain and poverty that all the refugees. Existing aussies need first attention.

dman:

30 Aug 2012 5:28:15pm

Maj- I doubt there are many people in australia suffering more than all the refugees. If anything the argument to put Aussies first is an argument against offshore processing as it is ludicrously expensive and paid for by the tax payer.

But overall I think this "put Aussies first" argument is nonsense and really comes from an us and them attitude born out of fear and ignorance. Why do we spend so much time debating and talking about whether or not too protect refugees who arrive by boat when there are so many other more pertinent injustices and social issues in this country?

somon:

30 Aug 2012 5:29:18pm

yes, you want to live without obligtions but you'll be the first to whine about how refugees should be fixing their own country. what nonsense that you or your hard done by mates have a harder life than refugees. it seems that this country is full of spoilt brats who are not prepared to make the slightest sacrifice to do the right thing by their fellow human beings.

OUB :

30 Aug 2012 4:41:52pm

No other country would offer to take them from us Somon. Once they've arrived onshore in Australia their plight is much less severe than people in camps. Problem solved as far as anyone outside Australia is concerned.

somon:

30 Aug 2012 6:43:26pm

Well, the united states resettles a lot of refugees and we may end up taking them in the end, but this is not a reason to not give them shelter. We have seen from history what happens when countries don;t give shelter to refugees.

somon:

OUB :

30 Aug 2012 12:54:32pm

Okay 100,000. Now bearing in mind the shortfall in the national housing stock, where are do you propose to house them? Do they have families that would like to join them? Remember large families tend to be the go in many parts of the world refugees are seeking to flee from. Will they wait patiently or will they take to the boats to advance their position? Water, droughts, would this need to be planned for? Jobs? Education? Give us a clue, unless you think putting up a number means your job is done.

Craig:

30 Aug 2012 1:08:35pm

@Jimmy. Why 100000 though? What then when more refugees wish to settle in Australia? Would it then be extended to another arbitrary number? When that number is reached, what mechanism would be in place to say no more? Would it then be back square one where we are again the position we find ourselves in now?

As an aside. 100000 is plenty of people to absorb. Most of them will be unskilled and will not give back to the economy that support all of us (including you) in short/medium term. In addition, many of them have distinct cultural differences and views (I think people fail to understand this) that are at odds with our pluralistic society. What are the consequences to that? Rather than brush these questions aside, have a think on it.

With huge numbers comes critical mass and there will be an impact on Australian society as those sorts of numbers are bound to change the fabric of our society. This has implications for women in Australia especially.

Pull factor is bound to increase as we (globally) deplete resources and sectarian/ethnic and resource based conflict escalates. The number wanting to make their address in Australia will be greater than a mere 100000 Jimmy.

somon:

30 Aug 2012 3:14:30pm

we could get about 13-14 billion by cutting family tax benefit A and another 5 billion by abolishing the deisel fuel tax rebate for the mining industry (a direct transfer of cash from the public purse to mining company profits).

but i'm sure treasury has a lot of options and i imagine your costing is a bit rubbery.

el-viejo:

30 Aug 2012 4:17:01pm

Cutting the family tax benefit A so that more people could self-select for permanent residence in Australia and eligibility for welfare benefits, would no doubt go down a treat electorally among the current recipients. I can hardly think of a better way of effecting a rapid change of Government.

Also an interesting paradox - no family tax benefit A for those resettled as a result of cutting it, I presume?

somon:

30 Aug 2012 6:46:40pm

Deisel fuel rebate for miners should have goine in the last budget, but mining interests have unsurprising influence. family tax benefit A is needed by all those poor wretched and starving suburban mums and dads.

libertarian:

30 Aug 2012 11:43:55am

Tasmania is a net drain on our economy, receiving more in handouts than it pays in tax. I propose evacuating the population to New Zealand and selling the state to a consortium of south east Asian pulp mills.

James Picone:

szkasa blue:

30 Aug 2012 1:03:17pm

I gotta better idea.Apple could buy Greece. All the Greeks could migrate to Melbourne and join their cousins. Greece could become a new nation of refugees and those seeking asylum or fleeing because of persecution. Plus they get a complimentary iPhone and iPad on entry.

For the rest of us each time we use our iThing we know we have helped saved humanity!

Done Now:

30 Aug 2012 12:34:18pm

Actually, King Island has been screaming for workers in their dairy industry and have quite a few times stated that they would love to have immigrants working at the farms to keep them operational. The local government even suggested that it could be an alternative to the processing centres; let them work in a remote community that desperately, desperately needs the manpower.

But hey, that's not convenient to the political discourse, so no-one has remotely listened to their requests.

rougeelephant:

30 Aug 2012 2:09:29pm

off shore processing on King Island. Ha, seriously though, yes resettle a few (what 10) on King Island. I BET $2000 that no refugee from the middle east or Sri Lanka will willingly go.Sydney or Melb is much better.

Done Now:

30 Aug 2012 4:01:05pm

mmm. In the (apparently) unending horde of 'queue jumpers', there surely wouldn't be a single person willing to be given a well paying and productive job straight off the bat, would there? They'd much all prefer to live in overcrowded cities and work minimum wage jobs, all of them, because they're a single homogenous blob!

No sir, best to keep them in Nauru (at how many tens of thousands of dollars per year, per person?) so that they don't have to do this job they would surely hate. After all, the entire point of offshore processing was to make them as comfortable as possible and stop them doing things they didn't want to do. Much better to keep them there with no options but to sit around for years at a time being unproductive and ultimately costing billions. That's the only humane thing to do, because if we were ever humane with them, we'd apparently be rolling out the red carpet and inviting more, while simultaneously we are refusing to cooperate with malaysia because they'd be treated inhumanely, which would be wrong, and anyway, since they're all nothing but economic nation-shoppers, they could never contribute to the economy by being workers, because look at them all! Sitting in camps not contributing and costing billions of dollars to look after! Useless! Let's not allow them jobs, because they're all moochers!...

The point of my sarcastic rant? That the sheer level of shortsighteness and hypocricy in this debate continues to be mindblowing. I cannot stress enough how stupid this entire debate has become.

juliet jones:

30 Aug 2012 1:49:57pm

A glib and sad answer to a serious problem. What a shame. If we can't think of an answer it's up with a put-down of the Greens instead of something productive. I believe we help who we can. Forty five million displaced refugees are not hammering to be let into Australia, so we take who comes. There's still not enough of them to make much difference.

Kingbast:

30 Aug 2012 8:55:21pm

Capital idea! It seems the Greens have been foisting minority politicians on the rest of us for quite some time. How about we re-divert the boats the Tasmania, whilst booting it out of the Federation. Cost savings include all the subsidies paid to the state and the cost of twelve useless Senators travelling to and from Canberra each time Parliament sits. Wayne 'what a goose'Swan, the world's greatest treasurer would be pleased as it would help meet his politically driven surplus. Forget Manus and Nauru, put a refugee camp in the centre of Hobart!

Craig:

30 Aug 2012 1:15:54pm

@sdrawkcaB: Got any specific suggestions on that? It sounds great and we should get across that... but how? How do you reconcile all the differences (manufactured or real) between people? And then get consensus.

I'd like to make a throwaway statement that's also meaningless. Here goes:

sdrawkcaB:

30 Aug 2012 4:49:30pm

No I don?t know how that is done but look, I have a day job and pay tax. By its nature that would mean I am paying someone to work out how to do it for me.

So a supplementary statement would be to push the politician to the side and let the expert have the floor for a change. I would be interested to hear from those who are giving a fair portion of their life to this problem.

Jamil:

Starman, that's never been the issue. Nobody expects Australia or even every Western nation to suddenly absorb 45 million people.

The issue has been about demonising the unfortunate people who through no fault of their own are in this situation.

This is what so many of us are fighting over -- the way these innocent people have been used in our political battles.

All we need to do is go back (there's that expression again) to the bipartisan policy that saw Australia resettle tens of thousands of refugees peacefully and effectively in the second half of the 20th century.

All that changed when a desperate John Howard -- behind in the polls in 2001 -- decided to exploit the latent fear of foreigners present in too many Australians if he was to have any hope of winning the election that year.

As it turned out, September 11 swept him (and other incumbent governments around the world) over the line.

Waterloo Sunset:

30 Aug 2012 10:27:26am

"All we need to do is go back (there's that expression again) to the bipartisan policy that saw Australia resettle tens of thousands of refugees peacefully and effectively in the second half of the 20th century. "

How? We don't have the room now. And truthfully we don't have the money. Despite all of the spin about being clever and rich.

Ten years ago every family could have had a 1/4 acre block but you know we just seem to keep breeding.

I am not advising this as a course of action as there are other considerations such as housing density and infrastructure that have not been factored into the equation but it does highlight the absolute absurdity that we "don't have the room"

Waterloo Sunset:

mike:

30 Aug 2012 12:56:53pm

Environmentalists claim that Australia's natural resources cannot even support the population it has now, yet you advocate a population of billions in Australia. What have you been smoking? Most of Australia is barren desert.

Horrocks:

Craig:

30 Aug 2012 1:26:50pm

@Graeme T: You've just eroded your point with your maths foray. Of course, we could fit the Earth's population twice over in Victoria and still have physical room (just build one huge hive city). But housing people isn't just the physical space they inhabit, it's the resources they depend upon to live and that which they consume. Then there is the economic means for their survival. What huge industry will we have that can be used as an employment sink for this extra population you support? Population hyperbole aside, would you really want to live in overcrowded hive like city ala neo Tokyo (but without the Japanese tendency for cleanliness)?

Mining is not going to last forever. Like the Saudi's dependence on oil for their economy, we are too dependent on our mining sector. When that goes bust (peaks and troughs), how will the Australian Govt cope with the increased Social Security burden of Australian citizens, let alone the numbers of displaced you seem to think we can fit in.

Graeme T:

30 Aug 2012 4:28:26pm

You should read my post all the way through Craig. Then you might have got to the point where I say I am not advising this course of action for the same reasons that you have just stated. Just pointing out that there is a lot of room in Australia.

Brad Shannon:

30 Aug 2012 11:22:47am

Sydney Melbourne and the Gold Coast are full. Other cities will be soon. Australia is actually empty, empty of values, empty of direction and empty of leaders with Vision. The actually Country is empty too...get out of the city for a change and go see, there's lots of room for more cities....who said there only has to be 7 on a continent this size? THATS where the pollies are failing us. Take the Nullabor - we can desalinate water. We can produce solar power. That leaves the 'nothing to do there' claim....there was 'nothing to do there' in Botany bay in 1788 either. Why do we have a thriving coastline all the way up the east coast yet the Nulla and 99% of the WA coast is vacant, and much nicer than the east coast anyway.... and then there's all the verdant vacant land of Western Vic. Our pollies dont have a clue.

rudy:

frangipani:

30 Aug 2012 10:28:35am

Australia has always had, and still does have, a bipartisan policy on resettling refugees out of camps. That hasn't changed one whit in 60 years.

The issue of boat people is an entirely different one because we do not have the control over it that we have over offshore resettlement. It's the control, or lack thereof, that's at the root of the problem, and not racism per se. The ALP struggled with the issue every bit as much as Howard did, and it was they who came up with mandatory detention in an effort to get a handle on the situation (not that it worked, at least no in isolation from other measures). You can blame Howard for "demonising" asylum seekers, but you can't attribute to him alone the concern about the asylum movement, nor the efforts in one form or another to stem the flow. That's been the policy of both sides of government, on and off, since the 70s.

Billie Blue:

30 Aug 2012 10:33:26am

No Jamil, "we" do NOT need to go back to the resettlement that brought in many displaced Europeans from World War 2. We do not need to grow our population, and we do not need to take in the entire populations of other nations. We cannot solve the problems of any other nation and it is crazy to bring in their problems to destroy our nation.

Whitey:

30 Aug 2012 10:46:05am

None of the parties with any hope of being a government, will or could, have a policy of a relaxed border security. To do so would be insane, the Greens rail against the border security issues, but don't have a workable policy of their own. The last Australians with out real border security were the aborigines, and look how that went.

James Picone:

30 Aug 2012 1:02:06pm

"as we have no real racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one", huh?

There are 21 million Australians. Refugee numbers are a drop in the bucket. 100,000 refugees would be 0.5% of our population, approximately. We can easily take an order of magnitude more refugees than we do right now.

el-viejo:

"We can easily take an order of magnitude more refugees than we do right now."

An order of magnitude more than now would be 200,000 (10 x 20,000). That's just about the number of people waiting in Indonesia and Malaysia combined.

Pray tell, what do we do with the next 200,000 and the next one after that? This is not a bowl to be emptied, it is a self-replenishing queue.. At the first sign of Australia taking 200,000 people out of Indonesia and Malaysia there would be a mother of all runs on air tickets to get there from many unforunate parts of the world.

somon:

Geez, talk about splitting hairs! An order of magnitude greater than the 14,000 we took in the last year would be 140,000 as we only intend to take 20,000. but really, its close enough isn't it.

It has become clear to me here that many people just don't want to accept any refugees. they actually propose 0 as the number we should take. but they argue disingenuously over numbers just to obfiscate.

Spin Baby, Spin:

30 Aug 2012 11:48:20am

I don't think it's demonising, so much as ensuring everyone gets a fair go. You seem to be sticking up for people who have enough ability to get out of the camps and on the boats. People who through their actions show they are strong enough to make it on their own. The people you're fighting against are those that are aguing for those in the camps who have no voice. And you call that "deamonising"? You are the one that are saying those truly vulnerable in the camps must wait because someone else with enough resources made it here on a leaky boat and should get first priority. Sorry, but I completely disagree with you. Give those that come on a boat temporary protection if they need it. They've demonstrated that they have enough resources to "make it" when they get back home. Its those truly vulnerable in the camps that should be afforded permanent protection in Australia. That's what most of us are arguing as it all ties into border protection. Call us racist all you like, but at least I'm happy with where my conscience sits on this. How do you reconcile yours with putting those most vulnerable on the heap out the back. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they aren't there.

Thursday:

30 Aug 2012 3:25:14pm

Well said Jamil. We can disagree about policies and strategies for harm minimisation but we should all be able to agree that we shouldn't call vilify refugees for simply wanting to live in safety. We'd do exactly the same thing in their position.

Spin Baby, Spin:

Celarent:

30 Aug 2012 9:48:46am

Let's focus on the real problems and offer real solutions. 45 million refugees is not the practical concern that is on Australia's doorstep right at this minute, its a theoretical excercise which confuses the issue of what to do with the several hundred thousand asylum seekers situated right at Australia's doorstep for whom we have an obligation under international law. This is the immediate problem, and the immediate solution is to increase our intake of refugees, release the pressure the people are placing on our region. Its within our means, its practical, it will make a HUGE difference to the number of asylum seekers in the region, it will be MUCH MUCH cheaper than Nauru AND its the right thing to do on top of that.

rudy:

30 Aug 2012 10:31:37am

A large increase in refugee intake has been announced by the government and supported by the opposition. That in itself won't stop the boats. That's because the large pool of refugees within reach of Australia, and the attractions of Australia, are the source of the flow of refugees. Even if Australia increased its refugee intake tenfold, I don't believe the flow of boat arrivals would be stemmed. The government doesn't believe it either, no-one credible does.

somon:

30 Aug 2012 12:08:59pm

The reason people get on boats knowingly risking their lives is that they see no realistic hope through waiting to be resettled. If they thought they had a better chance waiting they would. Several hundred thousand is a managable number (over several years).

I also doubt that many more refugees would enter the region than do now. The "vast army" of refugees that will flood to Australia has no basis in reality. We have had a higher intake than europe for decades, but millions head for europe. When we have hundreds of thousands in camps in the norther territory, then such talk might be credible. We have a few thousand a year.

The 45 million refugees dont have the ability to flood to australia even if they wanted to. Most head for europe, they have barely heard of Australia.

rudy:

30 Aug 2012 3:36:32pm

Come off it - you can find several hundred thousand in a single camp in Pakistan. If some of them are accepted to Australia, and time goes by and most others are not accepted, what makes you think their patience will be better than it is now? And what happens to the flow of refugees from Afghanistan after allied troop withdrawal in 2014? I reckon the Australian government will need 10 Naurus.

somon:

30 Aug 2012 4:10:57pm

Yes, we can't save the whole world so we better do nothing. Besides, if we do something it might cost us money and there are so many details to work out. We should just ask "What happens if....?" endlessly so we are prepared for all possibilities. No one else in the entire world will accept any refugees anyway so why should we? And there will just be more wars making more refugees. If we start it will never end! Let's all agree not to act until we have a p[erfect plan to solve the whole problem. Otherwise, it wouldn't be fair.

rudy:

Billie Blue:

30 Aug 2012 10:38:21am

You people just don't get it. There is no single pool of several hundred thousand (too many for Australia to deal with in any case) that can be cleared to "relieve pressure". There is a vast army of numbers that are moving through, looking for a better life. They rely on our gullibility and inability to identify their true purpose (lifestyle) in order to get on the neverending teat of Australian refugee welfare. The more we take, the more will show up. Every single person we take is replaced by ten more.

buttercup:

30 Aug 2012 10:16:20am

Starman, there were millions of displaced persons after WW2 in Europe, some of whom came to Australia and built the Snowy River Scheme. There were men of every nationality, every type of talent including labourers, men who were academics, people who had lived through terrible circumstances, yet they all bucked in and got the job done. They married Australian girls and lots remained here and settled.

Why not let people seeking asylum build our country for us as did the WW2 displaced persons? Surely we could do some major projects where they could be employed as a condition of their remaining in Australia?

I think the biggest problem today is that these asylum seekers are not white, Australias white australia policy is ingrained in us unfortunately. Maybe we should start looking at these people as human beings rather than people of another color???

Billie Blue:

30 Aug 2012 10:41:12am

After World War 2 the world was still in that medieval mindset of thinking we need huge populations in order to conquer nature. Now we know that our huge populations are causing our planet to die from the human infection. Australia not only doesn't have the need for more population, we don't have the capacity for them. Our dry continent is over capacity for humans by 200% already.

somon:

30 Aug 2012 12:14:48pm

Please. This population argument belongs on a different article. The people seeking asylum already exist and it makes little difference to the environment on which side of a line on a map they live. In fact living in Australian cities is probably more environmentally sustainable than in camps. The refugee problem is not an environmental one. Refugees do not increase the earth's population (unless you advocate letting them die, in which case why not advocate culling of the Australian poulation?).

If you are so concerned about population growth, campaign against the baby bonus and other incentives to expand population, not refugees.

el-viejo:

30 Aug 2012 2:55:12pm

"There were men of every nationality, every type of talent including labourers, men who were academics, people who had lived through terrible circumstances, yet they all bucked in and got the job done."

All of whom were processed overseas and screened by Australian officers for thei ability to do the work.

Besides, we do not do Snowy Rivers any more. Environmentally unsound. The green movement woud not allow the Snowy Hydro to be built today.

deliah:

31 Aug 2012 7:51:40am

Why not say different religion? As a woman I really do not want to live in a country under sharia moslem law. Its ok for blokes though.Also after world war 2 there were a lot less humans on the planet, now we are full.

An Idea:

30 Aug 2012 10:21:22am

Set up a system where under skilled companies can find qualified people in these camps to fill gaps in employment, it makes both humanitarian and economic sense. The likes of Clive Palmer and Gina Reinhardt should get onto the PM about it ASAP.

hugh carnaby-sirius:

30 Aug 2012 1:37:20pm

Most of them would require training to work in the mining industry. The government would have to pick up the bill for that as Gina don't believe in doing such things.

But maybe they would be prepared to work 100 hours a week for her, at $2 an hour (you have heard she's suggesting scrapping the minimum wage and having all Australians work unlimited hours haven't you?)

el-viejo:

30 Aug 2012 2:58:33pm

"Set up a system where under skilled companies can find qualified people in these camps to fill gaps in employment"

Go check the mandatory qualifications required to work in the WA and Qld mines. Then go find people with these qualifications among semi-nomadic pastoralists of Somalia or subsistence farmers of Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. Mining is not done with pick and shovel any more.

GreenRus:

libertarian:

30 Aug 2012 12:03:49pm

Yep, send them to Europe on the provision that they work 60 hours a week. Europe needs replacements for those who have forgotten how to work and have become mesmerized by the welfare systems and big government.

redhappyhead:

30 Aug 2012 12:46:20pm

Cut and pasted from the other story..Here's a thought for a global solution, although we are overtaxed, I wouldn't mind paying one more for an effective outcome. A global and structured approach, administered and run by retired volunteers, who do not gain a wage. The knowledge and skills usually lost once a person retires would be invaluable. If all people who earn a wage in all countries paid a minute tax, supplemented by a rather more substantial tax by companies who profit from war, there would be adequate funds to address all needs. A new and effective U.N could also then be globally funded, rather than by the self serving needs of the U.S and it's insidious cronies. That justice and peace may actually occur, and that various member states, (and particularly their politicians) of the new U.N would be held accountable for their actions, could prevent a need for people to flee their homelands. As the corrupt and inadequate situation stands now, people will continue to seek refuge. A mechanism where apartheid or absolute corruption of various government heads of states is rewarded with imprisonment and accountability would be ideal. That all their ill gotten gains are seized and returned to their country's people, or repatriation paid to the invaded country would be effective. I would want to return to my homeland if it was safe and secure. Seems ridiculously simple? There's a big world out there, with billions of people. One more small global tax would make it happen

Mycal:

Pedro 2000:

30 Aug 2012 2:11:51pm

starman

The number is less than half of what you claim.Most people just want to go home. After some time most do.Most people do stay Refugees forever. E.g. Libya and Tunisia etc. Even the Tamils from Sri lanka (in refugee camps in India) should be going home.

Big M:

Barj:

30 Aug 2012 2:34:31pm

We can start by being a little more honest. There are about 195 countries in our world. So a little bit of simple arithmatic brings the number of displaced people we should be thinking about down to less than 500,000.

Reinhard:

30 Aug 2012 4:10:35pm

Starman, yes that is THE question, but there are so many others. Why can't the UN take full control of Somalia and other nations without a proper government? Why do Russia, the US and China get away with selling arms to dictators, warlords and insurgents? Why do UN peacekeepers spend half their time and effort protecting food and aid convoys from attack and not doing their job, which is keeping the peace? It's utter madness, everyone seems to have a finger in everyone else's pie, and in the meantime the poor continue to starve.

deliah:

31 Aug 2012 8:09:33am

How right you are. Ive just come back from a week in Dili and couldn't believe it. First time I've been to a UN controlled country. There are more forgien embassies than Canberra! And the Chinese, US, Australian and Portugese are Palaces. What are they after-Oil perhaps?The poor are still grindingly poor but a whole middle class service industry has grown up around the UN, forgien police and NGO's.Restaurants, flash hotels etc. UN people eating pizzas on the beach while the poor search around in the reefs at low tide looking for food. Disgraceful situation.They build the presidents palaces and schools when the first thing they need to do is fix the infrastructure......fix the roads for goodness sake.

KtLeslie:

30 Aug 2012 8:13:23am

A country divided is correct. I myself cannot seem to make up my mind. When stories erupt of how our Aussie pensioners are barely scraping by while these refugees are receiving an excess in benefits it lights a fire in me. I cannot understand how this is fair. But then I see the faces of these people hoping for better. These are people. Like me. And they are searching for help, for hope. How can we send a mother back for trying to create a safer life for her child. I've come to think it's not just the country divided.. It is also ourselves.

Dennis:

30 Aug 2012 8:53:52am

It is very unfair and it is not "social justice" the Labor Party has always claimed the high moral ground for. There are far too many homeless Australians yet our government provides special assistance to people who circumnavigate our immigration law, who do not adhere to the terms of the UN Convention as country shoppers. It is intolerable.

Appludanum:

I see, so asking for facts to support an argument is now deemed 'arrogant'.

Mark James made an assertion about the coalition that many of the pinko, lefty, commie, latte sipping, greenie, public servants would agree with.

You denied it, which is of course your right to do. Yet to not back it up with a list of coalition initiatives isn't going to encourage anyone to reconsider their pre-conceived positions and ultimately results in a slanging match between 'It just is' and 'It just isn't. I come here to discuss the issues of the day and broaden my outlook. Part of that broadening is the consideration of different viewpoints. Likening such a process to a social justice court is a bit precious, wouldn't you say?

mike:

Reinhard:

30 Aug 2012 4:35:04pm

"Well the average Australian did far better"Mick, that statement neatly sums up our difference of opinion, you think that is ok and we don't.Why do you think we hate Howard so much? Under Howard the average Australian was getting welfare they didn't need..

mick:

Reinhard:

MDG:

30 Aug 2012 5:57:30pm

They're not talking about "the average Australian", Mike, they're talking about homeless ones. And frankly, Mark James is not without a point - while it's a valid point that there are many Australians in desperate need of public assistance, it isn't hard to believe that a lot of the people who co-opt their sad cases as an argument against helping refugees would, at other times, complain about their taxes going to support "bludgers" or "cheats" or "no-hopers" or any of the other delightful epithets hurled against our most vulnerable.

If, hypothetically, the boats stopped tomorrow and the detention centres were emptied, would the people using homeless Australians to argue against helping refugees support redirecting the hundreds of millions of dollars saved into homeless support services? Some would, no doubt, but I strongly suspect that most wouldn't. Those who wouldn't are the hypocrites.

don't ask don't tell:

30 Aug 2012 10:35:28am

Having worked in the housing sector, specifically with homeless refugees. I think you'll find, nmost of Australia's homeless are actually the refugees themselves. And all of this talk about them receiving a whole lot of free stuff et al is absolute pure fantasy, lies and misinformation. It is simply symptomatic of the trend that the last person in is responsible for all of the other social injustices and struggles of the rest of society.

not fair:

30 Aug 2012 9:01:27am

yep and here on the gold coast over 200 people mostly women and children have no home to go to and sleep in cars or were ver they find safe whilst asylum seekers familys are being housed in rentals fully furnished at no cost! ps i volunteer fro st vinnys! and see it every shift i work.

rudy:

30 Aug 2012 10:33:54am

Aren't the issues of asylum seekers and homeless Australians really unrelated issues though, each requiring a separate response? And doesn't the government provide huge resources for social security already, far in excess of what is spent on refugees?

nick:

So let's turf out the new arrivals so the homeless can help the landlords get rich. Why not tackle housing at its root.

Repeal the BCA (building code of Australia) (ok it's not a law but it acts like one).It distorts low income - sweat equity style building.

Change the caravan and camping act (in WA) so that instead of saying you cannot camp within 18km of a caravan park, you cannot camp within 18km of a caravan park that offers powered sites for less than the %30 of the dole per week.

All new government land releases should have a caveat that the house built on it should not exceed 100 sqm with one toilet - ever, thus reducing speculation.

Start a reserve housing bank of australia so that when rentals (similar to inflation) gets to high, it releases/builds more housing (similar to altering interest rates) to keep rentals down.

Deregulated the closed shops of plumbing and electrical so that as in other countries (some of which have better safety records than us), those who are qualified and can past the necessary assessments can do basic household work (without needing to have a dad/uncle in the trade as in the old guild systems.

Jimmy Necktie:

30 Aug 2012 2:10:24pm

"Repeal the BCA (building code of Australia)..."

Probably not the best idea. Unless you want buildings that fall down and/or catch fire. And if it doesn't fall down and/or catch fire, what happens when you want to re-sell it? Just tell them "trust me, it's safe, I probably knew what I was doing".

el-viejo:

30 Aug 2012 3:05:47pm

Why stop there. Ask your Eastern European heritage neighbour how well the legislation and building codes worked there in the past that restricted the living space in apartments to 9 sq m (approx. 1 square) per person. Kitchens are unnecessary - communal soup kitchens will suffice. None of this plumbing nonsense. Issue plastic buckets. No elec trical transmission lines either. Pedal your own TV.

Billie Blue:

scott:

30 Aug 2012 12:23:47pm

How far are you willing to extend this idea? How about no more tax cuts while anyone is homeless? No funding for rich private schools, no funding for chaplains, no more tax breaks for religious groups while people are homeless? Can we go a step further and ban outsourcing while any Australian is jobless? How about banning executive pay rises while others find it hard to raise their children on the minimumn wage?

Applaudanum:

30 Aug 2012 3:15:08pm

Great list. I like the one-size fits all suffix 'while anyone is homeless'

Executive and Managerial salaries limited to 20% more than their average employee (including contractors) while anyone is homeless.Board members to be paid for he attendance at meetings at an hourly rate of 150% the hourly rate of their casual workforce, while anyone is homeless.Middle-class welfare to be diverted to services assisting the homeless.Tax concessions and handouts to the business sector to be withdrawn, while anyone is homeless.People found littering to be executed and their property distributed to services assisting the homeless.

honest:

30 Aug 2012 10:54:40am

I see the homeless on the streets of Perth growing every day. As is the fact my Step Father is placed in old age care and my mother loses her home because of the costs of putting him there. She wont be homeless as she has loving children. She is one of the lucky ones.

lazarus:

30 Aug 2012 11:42:07am

I suggest you see it but it does not happen. Refugees get 4 weeks "free" accomodation, it is paid for by IHSS after which time they have to pay market rent which in Darwin can be anywhere betweem $500 - $700 per week for a 3 or 4 bedroom house. They get it easy and for free is another furphy like the magic $500+ per week secret payment they get from Centrelink that makes its rounds on the internet. But whatever tickles your fantasy I guess.The fact that people are homeless is a tragedy but please don't blame refugees for what in most cases is a very complex set of personal circumstances that led to that situation. A refugee family did not go around to their former home and evict them.

Ford:

30 Aug 2012 12:37:43pm

People are homeless largely because we live in a nation that cares so little about them that they're unprepared to pay anything to see them housed. The overwhelming majority are mentally ill, or victims of abuse.Should we feign surprise that a morally bankrupt, selfish, self absorbed nation of poorly educated semi-literate chavs shows the same lack of compassion for refugees?I dare say most refugees are here due to a complex set of personal circumstances...that is honky code for "it's their fault" isn't it? Your attitude reflects the problem, not the solution.Australia has the capacity to deal with both issues, it simply lacks the moral fortitude to deal with either.

hugh carnaby-sirius:

rudy:

30 Aug 2012 12:19:29pm

Have any of you 'no immigrants while Australians are homeless' ever met a homeless Australian and understood them? I have, and I can tell you that many are not homeless because they cannot get a home. Many refuse offers of accommodation. Ask any social worker who deals with the problem and they'll confirm it.

trigger:

"When stories erupt of how our Aussie pensioners are barely scraping by while these refugees are receiving an excess in benefits it lights a fire in me."

That really sums it up doesn't it?

We reject what we see is unfair, and manipulative - the boat people manipulate the system, and rely on emotion, and our emotion is already reserved for those Australians who are not doing so well.

It seems governments are driven by what the world thinks of us and not what voters want.

It's like all the UN agreements we find ourselves signed up to, we don't do that, various lobby groups and bleeding hearts and governments get us tied up in that. The conditions imposed on us for refugees and immigrants is too high, way too high, When immigrants came here in the 50s and 60s, they did not get the handouts of today, they got bugger all, I know, I'm one of them and we all survived and prospered.

Why do Australians reject the boat people?

It's not just the boat people, we'd reject all immigration if we could, until .. key word, our own house is in order, until Australians are looked after first, after all isn't that why we pay taxes "for the good of the country", not "for the good of the World".

We seem to be able to spray money all over the world, but not here on people who need it, pensioners, carers, hospitals - but we can afford wasteful ego driven programs, Julia Gillard Memorial School halls, pink bats, UN donations, carbon welfare for Europe, industry welfare for unions.

Then on top of all that, we're told, we're heartless for not welcoming refugees or immigrants .. as far as my generosity goes, it has a queue, and at the front of the queue are Australians who need help first!

Billie Blue:

30 Aug 2012 10:46:20am

Agreed. We need to get our house in order and until we do so we should not be taking in any more people other than family reunion and maybe the odd brain surgeon if they are truly needed. That would mean no refugees and no immigration until we have our society working and functioning in a way that we are happy with.

Teo:

30 Aug 2012 11:00:30am

Well actually no it doesn't sum it up at all and your logic is very flawed, very archaic and incredibly ignorant. By the logic you propose we should separate ourselves from the world because your not happy with the obligations we have as being part of it. You know North Korea are doing that and I'm pretty sure they are not doing so well. I mean really where does one start with you comment!?

Teo:

30 Aug 2012 1:20:25pm

So you counter my criticism of your comment by just saying to me what I said to you..good one....so let's look at some facts, most of the world takes immigrants and refugees, even poor countries, infact the biggest UNHCR camps are in 3rd world countries because of the fleeing of people from war etc. The EU, all of North America including Alaska, and some South American countries all have humanitarian refugee intakes. In Asian countries it is more difficult because of food and power security so countries such as Japan and South Korea have these problems thus it is more difficult for them, however they do contribute financially to the UN more than Australia and other countries. North Korea is a ruthless dictatorship so you know! Countries like India and Pakistan have massive amounts of refugees from Afghanistan and Tibet, The Dali Lama himself is a refugee. Also using the notion that we should look after our own first and comparing the pensioner/homeless situation with that of refugees is flawed. Why should one humanitarian crisis take precedence over the other? Why can't we do both? The Commonwealth Government is just about to spend 40 billion on some new submerines...they have spent tens of billions in Iraq and Afghanastan blowing those countries further to hell in wars that are actually displacing the people who are trying to come here? Even if the government as you suggest stop all immigration do you really think that there would be an end to homelessness and pensioner poverty? If so what evidence do you have to back that up. Finally working in a public institution and having spent years going to visit my gran in a nursing home most of the people I encounter looking after the elderly are immigrants....

somon:

True. But the question is why do we think it is unfair to protect some one who is fleeing for their life, but fair for pensioners who are healthy and capable of working to receive money for nothing?

Pensioners' tax is not paying for their pension; their tax paid for their roads, their hospitals and healthcare, their trains, their defence force, their police force, and their free education. Pensions are paid for by the taxes on the current workforce. Pensioners received the benefits of their tax payments and now want to receive a pension out of mine. Meanwhile I wont get a pension, i have to rely on my own super. How is that fair?

Meanwhile, people who have had their whole families slaughtered and survived a miserable existence for years wanting to work and live in freedom and peace is unfair.

It is the boat people manipulating the system and pensioners aren't!

By the way, ask an indigenous person (if you can find one that was alive at the time) how much order our house was in when you arrived here.

Muuske:

30 Aug 2012 9:05:59am

Maybe you should look into the truth of the matter then to make up your mind. Pensioners in Australia don't get a very high income but they can manage. Refugees do not get an 'excess' of benefits. This is a myth propagated by channel 7 and which they had to retract. Go to DIAC's page online and it addresses what refugees get.

KtLeslie:

30 Aug 2012 10:23:21am

You are probably right Muuske.. And I should know better than to absorb the bias rot that washes from mainstream media. But i cannot help but wonder why I have homeless Australians living in my streets while people from other countries are housed and fed. I know the circumstances are different and please believe me when I say I believe we need to take refugees in as part of our global contribution. But that is the tear in my conscience. Like the mother who gives food to the homeless while her children starve. I find it hard to determine what is the right thing to do.

Joel:

30 Aug 2012 11:01:58am

Because homelessness is a very complex issue. In the vast majority of cases, it is not simply because they have nowhere to stay. There is a lot of money directed into helping homeless people and there are definitely options for people to go somewhere if they have nowhere to stay. Alcoholism, drug dependence and mental health issues are almost always involved and not necessarily in a correlational relationship - they all feed into each other.

As much as some people might like to suggest, Australia actually is a fabulously wealthy country and we can afford to both look after our own as well as people fleeing from persecution in their own country.

If we want to talk about financial costs, we should focus on the fact that mandatory detention cost many times more what alternatives such as community detention or bridging visas cost. We could afford a MUCH higher intake if mandatory detention didn't exist.

Fran:

31 Aug 2012 7:29:25am

I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. Homelessness is a complex issue (as is refugee policy), but to say that "there are definitely options for people to go somewhere if they have nowhere to stay" is simply not true. The people & organsiations who operate shelters for the homeless & for abused women etc. have been saying for years that every single day, they have to turn away many, many people - & the numbers are growing - because they simply do not have the capacity to look after everyone who needs it. To say that a lot of money is directed at our own homeless is also untrue. It is a pittance. Most of what is provided is done by the non-profit sector; & they can barely cope with the demand. We have the most pressing need & serious problems in our very own country. Also, the claims that Australians receive exactly the same help as we give to asylum seekers, are untrue. They may be eligible for similar Centrelink benefits, but they sure don't wait on public housing waiting lists for years on end; in some cases over a decade, like our own citizens do. Many people can not now afford to pay the high rents that our increased migration has caused through housing shortages - or they simply miss out due to the high competition for each house available. The mental health services provided to refugees is also far & away better than what is provided to our own citizens. As is the legal services. (Try getting free legal aid to sue the government if you're not a refugee, for example).

Our disabled are also getting a raw deal compared to what we're pouring into providing for refugees. People have to sit in their own urine for days, because they only can get a shower twice a week, or young disabled people put in geriatric homes because there are no services to provide adequate care for them. Our elderly don't fare much better once they become frail. The amount of money being spent on all these sectors of our own society is a pittance, compared to what is being poured into providing everything for asylum seekers - from phones to call back home, to having our own navy being used as a taxi service to Christmas Is. The cost is horrendous. And forget dumping mandatory detention; that would lead to a flood of people hopping on boats to try their luck, as we have already seen; leading to even more deaths at see, & more hugely expensive rescue operations as well.

Taswegian:

But yes, the most logical place to lay the blame for the appaling treatment of our poorest nationals is the cost of looking after a (very) few wretched souls escaping an existence we can barely fathom.

Billie Blue:

30 Aug 2012 10:48:00am

There are principles involved. Do you make your own family homeless to take in a bunch of people who are manipulating you into helping them? That doesn't make you a hero, it makes you look like a fool without conscience.

Marilyn:

Kevin:

30 Aug 2012 9:23:47am

The problem is more in the covering of politics than in the facts.

Pensioners have recieved record pension increases under this government, that does not mean they are all doing it easy, but with extremely low inflation, their situation must have improved from what it was before Labor were elected.This government have also implemented universally applauded aged care reform.

I think, if the facts were ever properly detailed in the media, that refugee's are not being supported anywhere near as much as many claim.

harriet:

30 Aug 2012 9:28:12am

The only problem with the 'stories' of pensioners scraping by and refugees receiving more than they should is that they are in fact just stories, put about by people attempting (fairly successfully) to raise the ire of the average punter. Have a bit of a look on the Department of Human Services website and see for yourself the difference between the fortnightly rate of payment for a couple on an age pension and a refugee couple receiving special benefit. You will be shocked alright, and not in the way you expect.

Billie Blue:

30 Aug 2012 10:49:47am

And yet as a refugee they have been given a free home filled with everything they need, special business loans free of interest to build a business, they never have to front up and explain why they are still on benefits and should they wish to study why we will allow them to do it all free of charge. Give the SAME package to Australians or do NOT give it to foreigners.

Darwinite:

30 Aug 2012 11:58:00am

BB - are you able to provide any links to Government websites showing all of these "Free" entitelements you claim are provided to refugees.

If you want to do some research, I can suggest the DHS website as a start - it has links to the current SS Legislation for Australia including definitions of 'refugees' and what they are entitled to in Social Security Terms. The Guide to SS is also there which will tell you how often they are required to front-up to their local Centrelink office etc. You may find the reality different to what you think...

Given a free home? State Housing authority websites will tell you what refugees are entitled to in public housing terms - and mate, it is NOT free - surprisingly they pay the same rates of rent as all other australians.

Free study - only under the AMEP program (ie: learning to read / write english). DIMIA website for that one.

"Special Business Loans" for refugees seems extremely unlikely but as I cannot find a website to refute that small portion of your claims, I will let it rest.

trigger:

Margie:

30 Aug 2012 2:04:01pm

Asylum seekers I know have been given a house, rent free, by the Red Cross who also provided all appliances, blankets, sheets, beds, T.V, etc. and a bike for the son. Three times that bike was stolen & 3 times it was replaced. The Government gives the Red Cross $10,000 for each asylum family & they are to be provided with the basics of a home. All new furniture provided by the big department stores.When the family I mention were relocated, they left EVERYTHING in the home & the Red Cross moved in & put it all in the skip....frying pans, blankets etc. This $10,000 PACKAGE is a FACT!!!!! All at the expense of the Australian taxpayer. We do not have excess land, the middle of our country is a desert and we are the driest continent on earth. Look after our own first. It would be impossible to take all the displaced in the world. We need to get rid of corruption in these countries and build proper cities for the people to inhabit.

Marilyn:

darwinite:

30 Aug 2012 3:46:34pm

And on 'Asylum Seekers' you are correct - there is some special government assistance (essentially this is only for those in the community and replaces whatever cost would have been incurred to the taxpayer by keeping them in detention).

For 'Refugees' (ie: those asylum seekers who were assessed as refugees and who have been given permanent visas), there is very little in the way of special assistance as per my post above.

lazarus:

30 Aug 2012 12:28:52pm

90% of their children are on the dole after 5 years? The argument was if you give security to refugees their children are likely to flourish and help form Australia's future.

But by all means go off on a tangent because you don't like the argument. 90% of refugees may be on the dole but a lot may be working casually and still counted as being on payments. If you had your first secure income in 5-10 years or more would you be willing to let that go easily?As the old saying goes there are lies, damned lies and statistics and use what you want to justify your argument.

MDG:

30 Aug 2012 1:10:48pm

I'd wager that the figure is not about the dole, but about welfare in general. That would also include things like Austudy, which frankly they should be encouraged to take up so that they can get much-needed skills.

nick:

30 Aug 2012 10:30:36am

I think just to be clear we need to divide the money spent keeping asylum seekers in custody (including in the community) to that given to them as welfare benefits available to every resident. I can't count the number of times I have had to explain this to people who complain that these "refos" are getting $40 000 a year, duh, that's the cost of locking them up. If you lock someone up the cost is yours and yours alone. This is where Tony Abbot is costing us a fortune, a bipartisan approach would be a lot cheaper than sending everybody to Naru. Also, it is the nature of welfare that most of the money gets passed to the community (shops) very quickly, nobody gets rich of welfare.

Joel:

30 Aug 2012 10:59:52am

We have to remember that much of the 'asylum seekers being placed in fully-furnished rental houses' and stuff like that is simply untrue. There has been an email circulating that pensioners get paid less than those seeking asylum, once again not true. Just scaremongering.

There is a problem to be answered, yet, but most of the 'facts' on this issue are not facts at all and you have to tiptoe around and really make sure you ascertain and can back up everything you say with empirical evidence, which nobody seems to be capable of doing when this topic arises. It just boils down to 'them' and 'us' and who is more superior.

Spin Baby, Spin:

30 Aug 2012 11:54:05am

Your right, but we each of us need to find that balance between good and bad, compassionate and sensible. That's why I like TPV's. Even a vulnerable mother with children would be less vulnerable once her children are old enough to protect themselves and her. Wouldn't it make sense to then re-settle these less vulnerable in their home country again and take on some more vulnerable mothers? Returning strong and educated adult children to their home country to assist in re-building and defending / running the country might actually benefit others in that country too.

Pete:

30 Aug 2012 12:12:38pm

KtLeslie - thanks for the most useful comment on this page. You're right, we are often internally divided over this issue, which may go some of the way to explaining why it creates such passion. A divided mind often erupts, taking a firm side in the conscious, hoping to fix the division. Of course, it doesn't, but humans don't like shades of grey. The extremists of the asylum seeker debate (eg. Deveny) are parodies of themselves. Where were the moderate, ordinary thinking people on Back To Where You Came From?

JOP:

30 Aug 2012 1:14:23pm

Strange, my in-laws are both on the pension and manage to live OK as well as save money for a bit of travel. Just because you read it on the internet doesn't make it so. I know people on good wages who fritter it all away; no doubt they feel hard done by as well, but it's no one's fault except their own.

Clownfish:

I used to be one of the great bleeding hearts on the asylum seeker issue. Hell, I even sent a congratulatory email to that bloke who held the sign up, on 'Big Brother'.

But I changed my mind.

For quite a while, even as I trotted out the standard lines of asylum seeker advocacy, I was plagued by a nagging feeling that there was a hollowness at the heart of the arguments.

Then came the catalyst that changed my mind. October 2009.

I saw a group of people who had absolutely no claim on the Australian government or people, or under international law, who had tried to force their way into the country unlawfully by paying tens of thousands of dollars to criminals, bully and browbeat the Australian government into caving into their demands, thus refugees who simply didn't have the means or lack of moral compass to pay criminals for passage to the country of their choice.

Reinhard:

Clownfish:

30 Aug 2012 11:49:33am

No.

I simply say that all asylum seekers arriving by boat have paid money to criminal people smugglers, are seeking to enter the country unlawfully*, and are displacing other people from Australia's refugee intake.

I take the stance that each of those things are wrong.

*Let's not have the ad-nauseum furphy that 'it's not illegal!' Read the law. It makes it quite clear that entering a country without authorisation is unlawful, whether seeking asylum or not.

Reinhard:

30 Aug 2012 4:42:43pm

"displacing other people from Australia's refugee intake."Ah there it is, right on cue, the "queue jumpers" argument. How many times must you lot be told? Our refugee intake is not determined by the boat arrival numbers, so there is no queue ..They aren't snaking to the front of the line at the dock, or stealing someone else's Refugee Visa are they?

Mark James:

Clownfish:

30 Aug 2012 12:24:45pm

Yes, but they're not necessarily the same, either.

But OK, let's talk evidence: the evidence clearly shows that following the implementation of the Howard program, unauthorised boat arrivals all but stopped. Following the dismantling of the Howard program, they soared.

And if you think I like admitting that John Howard was right about anything, you're very much mistaken.

Mark James:

30 Aug 2012 6:05:07pm

Clowny, you said you changed your mind because you "saw a group of people who had absolutely no claim on the Australian government or people . . . who had tried to force their way into the country", etc.

That's changing your mind because of one thing you saw.

I could understand you changing your mind if the people you saw were typical of asylum seekers. But it's obvious that those people are not typical because something like 87% of the people who arrive by boat and seek asylum are given refugee status.

You've pretty much used an anecdote (one example) to prove a rule (or to change your mind).

Now, whether or not Howard stopped the boats has nothing to do with your anecdote and your changing your mind unless you're also saying that the asylum seekers who arrived after Howard's Pacific Solution was dismantled are somehow less deserving than those who arrived before.

somon:

30 Aug 2012 2:24:01pm

Arrivals stopped but no one knows how many departures occurred. Arrivals in all OECD countries went own at about the same time, and at the same time the navy was turning back boats and housing asylum seekers on naval vessels so they would not be counted in the 'arrivals' figures. The arrivals stat was manipulated for political gain through unsustainable measures.

Alpo:

30 Aug 2012 9:25:17am

Therefore, Clownfish, you strongly support the initiative of this government (that was also suggested by the Greens) to substantially increase our intake of refugees. So that the poor and penniless souls left rotting in Indonesian camps waiting forever to be processed, will secure a speedy passage to Australia ahead of the "rich refugees paying a fortune to people smugglers".... Is that so?

Alpo:

30 Aug 2012 1:00:29pm

Billie, in the case of the Afghan Hazaras they have seen war and persecution since at least the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. People like them who flee their country, are not doing so just to stay a few years in a refugee camp, coping, and then hope to return to Afghanistan. Things for them are a bit more complicated than that. What it can certainly be argued, is that this is an international responsibility, and we should just play our part along with everybody else.

Alpo:

30 Aug 2012 12:52:32pm

Clownfish, please be consistent with your original post. You wrote:"I saw a group of people who had absolutely no claim on the Australian government or people, or under international law, who had tried to force their way into the country unlawfully by paying tens of thousands of dollars to criminals, bully and browbeat the Australian government into caving into their demands, thus refugees who simply didn't have the means or lack of moral compass to pay criminals for passage to the country of their choice.That's when *my* mind changed."So you are against those asylum seekers who pay people smugglers to take refuge to Australia and support those who stay in Indonesia, waiting their turn. If this is not what you are implying, then please re-write your original post in English.Neither your original post, nor my original reply mentioned anything about NUMBERS. So, who is shifting the argument?I think you need to improve on your logic, mate.

Clownfish:

sdrawkcaB:

30 Aug 2012 10:00:58am

I spent some time in the military.

During that time I was taught by the government on behalf of its people that the law does not exist in certain circumstances. The only crime that then becomes relevant is the crime of getting caught. Make it happen was the common slogan. That?s code for I do not care how you do this, just get it done.

I think if I was one of those people I would abide by that principle that is supported by the government of Australia and its people. The principle of make it happen. If that meant paying someone or ignoring some stupid law then so be it. Murder ? yep. Lie, cheat, steal ? all in a day?s work. Worry about the opinion of Australians ? you would have to be joking.

I would prefer to die trying then die in one of those camps. I may not get far since I would not have the support of a chain of command and a supply line but that would not stop me having a go. I would have a lot of time on my hands. I would be working out how to do it and not sitting around, slowly fading away.

Either way, I would make my best effort to get myself on one of those boats.

For me, I find it hard to chastise someone for doing the thing that I would be attempting in the same circumstances.

Billie Blue:

30 Aug 2012 10:59:31am

It would be fine for you to waste that effort trying to get to Australia were you a refugee. It would be wrong for us to accept you as such. And were you a refugee, would it not be better to put all that energy into efforts in your own country?

RenA:

30 Aug 2012 2:08:42pm

I tend to agree, if I was faced with the prospect of more than likely dying where I was I would pull every trick I had available to me to get out, legal or otherwise. I thought it was quite ironic on the TV show that the instant he realised they were in serious danger Peter Reith announced that he would be getting on the next plane out of there as - a. If he himself instantly had a 'get me the hell out of here' reaction, and was obviously willing to use whatever power he had in that situation to get out then why does he expect the locals to just sit by quietly and wait for death, and b. while its nice that he had the option to just "get on a plane" and leave, he fails to recognise that most of the Afghan people obviously do not have that choice no matter how rich or poor they are, or they would be just coming over on holiday visas and marrying in, getting sponsored work or just overtaying (like the British/Irish do). Desperate people will do desperate things.

creme brulee:

Clownfish. Interesting that you changed your mind. You have followed the same journey that many of the Labor side and not a few of the wettest Liberals, like Judy Moylan and Mal Washer, have had.

My problem with the way this issue plays out is how many lies are told by all sides, either demonising or canonising the people who seek entry to Australia when they are neither evil nor saints across the board.

I despise Abbott for both blowing the dog whistle loudly and also pretending that much of the Liberal party by 2008 had thought that we were past the problem. That is why Sharman Stone supported the closure of Nauru.

We need a national agreement on this issue, not the lies and malevolence that is driving us further apart. Go Back is an attempt at humanising the people we are talking about - not to suggest that we take them all, but also so that we stop seeing them as amorphous armies, rather than individual human beings.

The Houston recommendations are the best set of recommendations I have seen to manage the flow of people, both politically and morally. Abbott has taken a couple of recommendations, claimed victory and ignored the rest of the recommendations. This is tragic for Australia and our humanity.

GrumpyOldMan:

30 Aug 2012 2:03:39pm

Clownfish, did you actually watch the SBS program?

If you didn't, then go and watch it and don't make another comment until you do. If you did watch it, how can you justify your previous 'change in mind' in the face of the evidence of the horrendous conditions in which so many refugees and asylum seekers find themselves? And I apologise for using that horrible left-wing, bleeding heart word - 'evidence'!!

If you didn't feel deep and 'mind changing' sympathy for these unfortunate people, then you have no heart at all!

rudy:

30 Aug 2012 3:39:33pm

I've watched it, and it's heartbreaking, but I'm with those who say Australia cannot help them all - not all who need help, not all who ask for help, not all who try to come here for help. The flow of refugees will get bigger before it gets smaller. Not sure that even a Pacific & Malaysia solution will stem the flow.

rudy:

30 Aug 2012 8:59:47pm

Hold up with the conclusion leaps. I didn't say Australia can or should do nothing. And I have no idea how many refugees we should take, but I'm sure it's a number a long way short of all who'd like to come.

GrumpyOldMan:

(a) Australia should take more of these people, particularly those displaced by the Bush/Blair/Howard 'war on terror' which is clearly creating plenty of 'terror' in their homelands?

(b) offshore processing in Nauru and Manus Island does absolutely nothing to stop really desperate people getting on leaky boats, (in fact they only get there if they first get on a leaky boat and survive long enough to get picked up by our Navy!), and that the only way to stop them is to implement efficient and well resourced regional refugee processing in transit countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Kenya?

Or do you prefer to agree with people like Clownfish who doesn't even care to watch the SBS program because he doesn't want to be 'bludgeoned' with 'inconvenient facts' that conflict with his extreme right-wing ideologies.

Clownfish:

30 Aug 2012 3:51:33pm

I responded to the article, in which the author asserts that it is impossible to change peoples' minds, by offering myself as an example of someone who changed their mind - though probably not in the way the author would prefer, I suspect.

I'm perfectly well aware of conditions in refugee camps. I don't need a tendentious piece of agitprop to bludgeon me over the head, thank you very much.

I find it interesting that you try and make a virtue out of evidence-based argument, yet revert to pathos.

GrumpyOldMan:

It is impossible to have any sort of discussion with people like you because you are incapable of learning anything from anyone, or even seeing any issue from someone else's point of view.

And for what its worth, I don't believe for one second that you were once a 'bleeding heart' on the asylum issue and changed your mind. I don't believe you ever change your mind, regardless of the evidence presented to you!

longfulan:

30 Aug 2012 8:20:06am

One presumes then that the conservative mantra that there are only 'pull factors' and no 'push factors' will prevail...despite the evidence before their eyes. Yes, there is an inertia effect, much invested in political rhetoric and there ever-present face saving. So we saw tears from Smith and Anderson, followed quickly by face saving blurb. Reith came over as the utter cynic I have believed him to be for years with his mealy-mouthed ducking and swerving.

Billie Blue:

lazarus:

30 Aug 2012 12:38:11pm

This time around Abbott is not suggesting that they will not be granted a visa as was the case in Pacific Solution Mark 1. That was what dried up arrivals even though they were eventually granted visas and came to Australia. If you are going to be Keith Windshuttle and rewrite history fine, but like he has to, get your facts right. Neither of you has so far.

rudy:

John Coochey:

30 Aug 2012 3:50:04pm

I find that statement incoherent. Windshuttle has never been rebutted, a lot of people do not like what he says but they have never been able to contradict it based on evidence although you are free to attempt it.

frangipani:

30 Aug 2012 10:01:01am

You don't have to be a conservative to know that there are both push and pull factors, and that the balance between them often depends on domestic policy as much as on the global situation. The inability of conservatives to understand that many of these asylum seekers genuinely fear persecution, is matched by the inability of progressives to understand that not everyone who gets on a boat is a genuine refugee. The contempt each side holds for the other viewpoint, and the accusations of racist, xenophobe, or bleeding heart, do not make for dialogue on the matter.

What struck me about Deveney's article was not that she was wrong (though, on some points she was) but that she was unwilling or unable to listen to any view but her own. Reith wasn't much better, but at least he was prepared to hear other points of view, before measuring them against his prism of political pragmatism and dismissing them.

There are valid points to be made on both sides of this issue. It's the inability of either side to hear the other, and the castigation of those with differing points of view, that is preventing any form of meaningful policy discussion.

Mark James:

30 Aug 2012 10:29:57am

Well said, frangi. I think the reason this debate is so toxic and, therefore, so irrational, is because both sides are interested more in demonizing the other side than they are actually working towards a reasonable solution.

It's not easy, but maybe we need to put our cynicism aside and take both Reith' and Deveny's positions as genuine, and at face value, and work from there.

A bit hard to do, though, when Deveny is accusing Reith of having blood on his hands, and Reith famously demonised asylum seekers by claiming they'd thrown their children overboard.

el-viejo:

30 Aug 2012 10:41:13am

What strikes me, just as we are grappling with the difficult balance of push and pull factors determining the refugee policy, an unknown genius at the Australian Tourism Commission is paying Sri Lankan cable TV networks to bring Australian tourism commercials (gleaming beaches, sophisticated cities, fantastic food, fashionable women, happy people, lots of fun) into every cafe, tea house, street market, slum, shack and hovel of Colombo. When SBS Dateline asks young Tamils, watching these ads with gleaming eyes, what they think of Australia, they respond Australia is the land where every arrival gets a free house and 100,000 rupees... Have we gone completely mad?

Alpo:

30 Aug 2012 1:11:54pm

So, are you suggesting that the ATC is responsible for the surge in boat people?... Should they produce publicity where Australia is seen as the land of mosquito-borne diseases, shark infested waters and the most venomous snakes in the world... or what? Would that deter boat people? Would that attract tourists?

el-viejo:

30 Aug 2012 1:51:15pm

I am suggesting nothing of the sort. I am suggesting that heavily promoting tourism to Australia in an impoverished Third World Country, which has just emerged from a destructive civil war, is a bizarre idea. We are most unlikely to get legitimate tourists from Sri Lanka. The cost of air fare alone from Sri Lanka to Australia is out of reach of most of the population. Senior and experienced engineers are paid about $24k pa.

The side effect of this promotion is imprinting the image of Australia as the Promised Land of affluence on the minds of those who contemplate leaving Sri Lanka. I do not think there is any direct causal link between the ads and the boats. But combined with enthusiastic and over-simplistic calls home from successful asylum seekers in Australia ("you will get a free house and 100,000 rupees"), these ads may well be one of the contributory factors to the decisions to get on a boat.

Alpo:

30 Aug 2012 1:21:45pm

Hi frangipani, given your expertise in this area I would like to know your opinion (technical first and then personal) on this:"The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (and its1967 Protocol), to which Australia is a signatory, defines a refugeeas:'Any person who owing to a well founded fear of beingpersecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality,membership of a particular social group or political opinion, isoutside the country of his/her nationality and is unable, orowing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself/herself of theprotection of that country.' "How would you interpret the concept of persecution due to "membership of a particular social group"? Are the poor of Sri Lanka or Afghanistan or Iraq "persecuted" or "free"? What does "freedom" mean in those circumstances?

frangipani:

30 Aug 2012 2:06:53pm

@Alpo - poverty in and of itself is is not a grounds for claiming asylum.

However, poor people can be eligible for asylum, though not on the grounds of poverty. If you are a Hazara Afghan, you might have a legitimate claim because you're Shia and therefore a target of the majority Sunnis, and because you're an ethnic minority and therefore a target of the Pashtuns. The Taliban are, of course, mainly Sunni Pashtuns.

If you're a Tamil, you might have a legitimate fear of persecution by the Sinhalese. That's grounds for a refugee claim. Just being from a poor village is not enough.

Nor are poverty stricken Africans, be they Somalis or Sudanese or Congolese, refugees just because they're poor. The Convention is strictly for persecution (and moreover, it's "persecution," not "discrimination").

Also, and just a minor point, the Convention isn't really about freedom either. People can live in an oppressive regime, for example in Eastern Europe during the Cold War, and still not meet the Convention definition. There has to be specific persecution, not general oppression.

el-viejo:

30 Aug 2012 3:26:14pm

"Social group" is defined in relation to state policy as the 1951 Convention was written mostly with an eye to the persecution by Governments.

So, there may be a social group of trade unionists that a Government does not like, or a social group of liberal philosophers being removed from teaching by state edict, or a social group of mothers with triplets in a 'one child' policy state persecuted for breaching that policy.

But just being poor does not confer a membership of any specific social group. besides, individual and specific persecution (not discrimination) is required to get overc the line of the Convention definition

Lynne:

30 Aug 2012 8:25:11am

An excellent article, Jonathan- which I totally agree with.Watching Reith squirm when he came face to face with the returned asylum seeker was telling. He also seems to be the most nervous of the 6.Angry Anderson is digusting, and his pathetic attempts at 'making amends' are a joke. His comments? well.....suffice to say that they should be shoved back down his throat.The girls are trying- hope there yet. Especially for Imogen.But, as you have said- this is a mirror image of a divided nation, and will not change attitudes, sadly.Lets see what happens. The series is however going to be a moneyspinner for SBS.

hicks bogan:

mike:

30 Aug 2012 10:02:52am

So how many refugees should Australia accept each year? And what would you do about those who turn up who exceed that number each year? Those are the real issues here, not who is more or less compassionate.

lazarus:

30 Aug 2012 12:41:43pm

There has never been more than 13500 boat arrivals in a single year so I think that can be dismissed out of hand. Even at current arrival rates it will take till around the year 2040 to have enough arrivals to fill the MCG

mike:

Margie:

30 Aug 2012 2:14:23pm

A most important aspect of this discussion not mentioned here is that it it imperative that we have control of our borders. Boat people must be repelled and returned on that basis alone. Otherwise all the people living here in Oz might as well flee now as it will become open slatherwith boat people landing whenever and wherever they like. Of course, then there would be no money or jobs for them which is why the economic refugees and country shoppers come.

Simon (the other one) :

30 Aug 2012 9:40:27am

That's right - that is why asylum seekers claims are checked and about 95% are accepted here to live in Australia.

If you crash your car into a wall and say it was an accident that claim will be assessed. The authorities (police, insurance campany) will see you have lied, that your claim in not genuine, and you will be denied payment.

If you have a genuine accident, then you will be treated on merit. If you are seriously hurt - regardles of whether it was accidental or deliberate - you will go to an ED and be triaged ny a nurse.

So even if you tried to scam the authorities, you may well 'jump the queue' and be operated on ahead of other citizens who didn't break the law.

In your view, if you drove your car into a wall and needed life-saving operation, you would be denied this and left to die on the groundss that you have done this deliberately.

You may need to rethink your example ... it actually is an argument for accepting asylum seekers!

Luke :

mike:

30 Aug 2012 12:43:28pm

In both Fairfax and News Ltd. papers and even on the Drum, I've repeatedly read that only about one third of boatpeople end up being accepted into Australia as refugees (others go to places like NZ while others are simply rejected in their claim). So we must be reading different opinion pieces quoting different stats - perhaps manipulated to suit their respective opinions.

lazarus:

Marilyn:

Yes well if you bothered to read anything at all you would know the government are lying again.

Indians have the lowest acceptance rate of just 2% but because they come as bogus students on planes we never hear a word about them.

Chinese have a 20% acceptance rate but we never hear about them because they fly here.

Afghans have a 94% success rate before they ever see a court room.

Same with Iranians, Iraqis, and Sri Lankan Tamils.

In fact even while the government were claiming this year that Afghans were being rejected their acceptance rate was 74% on the first interviews, then 89% of the 26% rejected were accepted after the first review.

That means for each 100 Afghans 74 were accepted at first, then of the 26 not accepted at first 23 were accepted on second interviews so of the 3 left 2 were accepted in court which leaves us 1% of Afghans not accepted as refugees.

Billie Blue:

30 Aug 2012 11:06:29am

I see. And since almost every single person on the boats has NO identification and lies about their name and history, just what system of checks do you think are being used to determine that the person is ACTUALLY a refugee. Time to grown up and realise that this is not about reality, it's about policy, which is why when the government told the assessors to pass people, then about 97% were rubberstamped as "genuine" (whether they were or not was apparently irrelevant) and then the government said to reduce the number of approvals, then the approval rate magically dropped to less than 50%....do you think that the number of "genuine" refugees magically adapts itself to government instructions in this way?

Marilyn:

Hubert:

30 Aug 2012 9:59:13am

Kev, over 90% of "boat people" are found to be genuine assylum seekers.

Your point about why these people are seeking assylum is a good one. It's unlikely we'd ever be able to stop the US invading other countries (Iran next?), but we could at least keep our troops here, and maybe even denounce the US for its warmongering. There were no WMDs in Iraq. Bin Laden is long dead and wasn't even in Afghanistan. What blind fools we are!

mike:

30 Aug 2012 10:47:18am

Wouldn't you want to seek asylum if you were forced to live under the brutal Taliban regime? That's why there were asylum seekers fleeing Afghanistan well before any U.S. troops went there in late 2001. The U.S. is not the cause of the global refugee problem; overpopulation and dysfunctional cultures and brutal oppressive regimes are the primary causes.

TGU:

30 Aug 2012 11:00:46am

Hubert, "there was no WMD's in Iraq", what did Hussain use to kill all those Kurds with, Chemical weapons are classed as WMD's or didn't you know that. The only reason that the majority of these illegals are found to be genuine refugees is because they have destroyed any documentation they needed to get to Indonesia and lied about their true identity, because their identity can't be proven they are given the benefit of the doubt and allowed in. This only shows the ineptitude of the screening system and the lack of resolve by the politicians who are fully aware of what is going on and choose to ignore it.

Marilyn:

TGU:

30 Aug 2012 10:02:04am

KK, by law they are illegal aliens and remain such until their identity can be proven, this is a fact that the apologists seem to overlook. The tragedy for Australia is that in most cases identity proof is practically impossible to prove and they are given the benefit of the doubt and allowed in.

Billie Blue:

30 Aug 2012 11:08:41am

We need to go back through every refugee that has been HOME to their original country and assess whether they lied to get into Australia and start rescinding all visas and "citizenship" and returning them forthwith. We have too many fake refugees in Australia travelling to and from the place where they say they had a fear of persecution.

Luke :

mike:

30 Aug 2012 12:46:47pm

It is not illegal if you come directly from your country of origin where you are under threat of persecution, however the boatpeople are not under persecution in Indonesia or Malaysia where they come to Australia from so yes they are doing something illegal even under the specific terms of the U.N. refugee agreement.

Bs:

Phil in Leichhardt:

30 Aug 2012 10:36:45am

People who come to Australia by boat and request asylum ARE asylum seekers (as are those who come by plane).

They are defined as asylum seekers by the fact that they are seeking asylum. Whether they are refugees or not is determined AFTER they seek asylum. This is an important point that is often misunderstood.

Unfortunately the analogy here with a car crash is flawed. Why would you crash your car into the wall and hurt yourself if nothing was wrong?

Clearly there are many things that are deeply wrong in places like Afghanistan, Somalia, Sri Lanka etc. People do not leave these places because they things are fine and dandy there.

Many people in these countries legitimately fear persecution, torture and/or death for what would be the most normal of acts in our society. For example, the beheading of 17 people in Afghanistan for singing and dancing in a mixed gender setting (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-28/taliban-accused-of-beheading-17-afghans/4226624).

I agree with the point that it's difficult to identify people without documents. However given that documents are difficult to get when there may not even be a government (e.g. Somalia) or an office that issues Visas (e.g. for Australia in Kabul, that's right you cannot get an Australian visa in Kabul) the point falls a little flat.

Re tacking the problems of why people need to seek asylum, Australia has been doing some things about this. We have a substantial but not overly generous aid program. We have troops in Afghanistan (though our involvement in Iraq created problems rather than solving any). Australia is also often a vocal (though perhaps not always vocal enough) critic of many regimes which persecute their citizens (e.g. Gaddafi's Libya and the current situation in Libya). More of course, can and should be done - political will is often lacking however.

The most important question is, however, what would you want done if you were in their situation?

Terry2:

30 Aug 2012 8:30:07am

Clearly the situation of people in the Sudan and Afghanistan is deplorable and it seems that part of the long term solution is to stabilise the domestic circumstances in these countries. It is noteworthy that the dangerous situation prevailing in kabul when the Reith party arrived was due to the burning of the Koran by American soldiers. Hopefully our withdrawal from Afghanistan will help the local situation.The possible loss of another 150 souls in Indonesian waters is tragic and hopefully will convince people like Deveny to understand that the people smugglers must be defeated and another process of resettlement developed in conjunction with UNHCR and Indonesia.

Mr Burns:

30 Aug 2012 8:31:44am

"Two sides, poles apart; one motivated by compassion and quite probably guilt, the other by fear, distrust and quite possibly bigotry". Guilt and bigotry go deeper than politics as these two factors lay at the heart of christian religion. They happily coexist at the heart of our western culture. We will always feel more guilt if it the person being effected is one of us and more bigoted the greater the person concerned is different from us.

hicks bogan:

Miowarra:

30 Aug 2012 10:23:02am

hicks bogan protested: "...the heart of Christs tecahings."

I strongly suggest that since those are obviously (based on results) NOT at the heart of the Christian religion, they're essentially irrelevant in the wider community.I further strongly suggest that your efforts are best directed at making them the heart of the Christian religion, rather than in attempting to persuade the wider community to adopt principles that even the religion you instance won't implement universally among its own followers.

There's a saying about removing the beam from your own eye before criticising the mote in your neighbour's eye, isn't there?

hicks bogan:

30 Aug 2012 12:04:38pm

Oh dear, someone's having a bad day. Kindly point out just where the 'criticism' is in my post. It was a mere statement of fact. If anything, the inference is that those practicising religion in the name of Christianity fail in not adhering to Christ's teaching.

And kindly point out where I "attempted to persuade the wider community" of anything at all? Methinks you read between the lines far too much.

Perhaps you have a beam in your eye - there certainly seems to be something that limits your comprehension.

mike:

Bluey:

30 Aug 2012 8:38:06am

Reith is a Dill, Smith showed signs of change, even though he was sticking to his hard line, Angry was Angry, i think Angry showed signs of a turnaround.This issue is a very difficult one, no easy answer.It is utterly heartbreaking to see the hoplessness and despair on these peoples faces.We should take more, nobody is suggesting taking the all as the Media spin it, but 100 odd from Somalia seems odd, we should raise that, and we should also assist them there to better themselves, we need bigger ideas and bigger solutions, using a Ferry to bring them all here does not fix the issues for those left there.It needs REAL thinking, the UNHCR not providing fresh water really gets up my goat, h2o in 2012 should be available to everyone no matter how poor, how run down a region is.If the Romans could find h2o anywhere and did harness it, how is it we cannot? We have a probe on Mars taking samples and beaming pictures back to earth in HD yet we can't make water appear in arid regions? The Romans had no issue..The hardliners like Bolt, Jones, 2GB and Co are idiots and as dignified as a pimple on your bum cheek..The UNHCR need a rocket up their backsides.

Shebs:

30 Aug 2012 9:50:24am

The Romans did not have the sheer numbers of people that now exist, and you should be aware that much of that water ended up causing salinity issues, just as a lot of earlier, and later, civilisations either had to deal with, or move away from. The latter was the usual event.

This an analogue for our situation: Australia cannot suport Labor's "Big Australia" sometimes-vision as Labor and the Greens stymie infrastructure such as dams and power stations. Our water reserves may seem healthy now, at least on the east coast, but the only fallback we have is expensive desal plants, when Victoria would benefit most from damming the Thompson, our fastest river....oh wait, Labor locked it away in a fit of Greening.

Same with power: Gillard wanted to close Hazelwood...and offered no form of alternative electricity source beyond vague and unworkable promises of Green jobs.

lazarus:

30 Aug 2012 1:52:14pm

Trouble for you is the Libs have a Big Australia plan as well Shebs. Either way Deslination plants are going to be needed when Aus heads back into drought.

The Government are not stopping power stations from opening, just wanting them to be more environmentally friendly. Your fastest flowing river won't be flowing very fast if it has dams on it, which do you want?

Bluey:

30 Aug 2012 6:31:19pm

My point stands, the Romans built wells and/or engineered solutions, a Well supplies many, the point is they found a way. You forget Romans erected over 600 Cities in Africa each of which had Municipal buildings, Bath's, Markets, Theatres and most important ALL had an Arena, how is it 2012 Modern Man cannot supply h2o in these areas? Lets get fair dinkum here..UNHCR at times are inept..

Bluey:

30 Aug 2012 6:36:56pm

ahhh Shebs, places like Algeria still use that Roman Water, in fact in some parts its the ONLY water Algerian farmers have.Salinity was in those regions that were Annexed (Carthage) and Rome decided to leave Legions there for a century to plough salt into the earth rendering it 'lifeless' as punishment. That's how hard and nasty they were. But in terms of water and capturing rain water, they were and still are the MASTERS..

Terence:

30 Aug 2012 10:18:23am

I was worried about the water issue too but, as we saw, the well-point was established with concrete slab, taps and assocaited plumbing so did anybody speak to the UNHCR officials. Was it a submersible pump down to an aquifer that was not functioning. I live on rainwater tanks supplemented by a bore so I look at this from a practical perspective; what was the problem, we need more information: I may be able to pop over and fix it !

bitrich:

30 Aug 2012 8:54:17am

Agreed, politicking on this issue is to be deplored but its simply partisan rubbish to pretend its only been the Coalition that has sought political advantage.

A necessary first step would be the open border lobby to acknowledge that disregarding or rubbishing the majority opinion was foolish. They didn't really try to persuade, they barracked for a Labor party that walked both sides of the streeet on the issue - Kevin Rudd and his'tough but humane' blather.

Kevin:

30 Aug 2012 11:58:53am

Obviously the public are dissatisfied with the way the government have handled this issue with justification. This has been their one stuff up. having said that, a year ago they came up with the Malaysian solution which was a no advantage system sending asylum seekers back to Malaysia. A year worth of political opportunism by both the coalition and greens later, we have a no advantage system based in Nauru and PNG.

This could have and should have been sorted long ago and would have had their not been votes to be won by both the coalition and the greens on this issue.

Yes Labor had always opposed Nauru, but after the high court stopped Malaysia, the Labor government proposed a compromise to get legislation through parliament that would have allowed this current solution. That was a year ago. The coalition blocked it for political point scoring reasons.

Reinhard:

30 Aug 2012 3:18:43pm

Kevin is dead right, people died at sea while the Greens and coalition were busy scoring political points, and the Govt was stuck in the middle..And we never had a chance to see if Malaysia was good policy , did we?

Joel:

lazarus:

30 Aug 2012 2:14:54pm

We have been looking after people here who have problems, we just can't solve all the problems people have. Some people are quite happy with their problems and don't want to change their situation in case it brings new & different problems to what they have been dealing with. Others will try to change & give up and some will succeed.

Do we give everyone housing without adressing their drug, acohol or gambling addiction which has led them to be homeless setting them up to fail and have larger debts?

Terry:

30 Aug 2012 8:39:24am

"We are a country deeply divided, and the compassion of three will not carry the whole."

This sums up Mr Green's (and SBS's) underlying theme: that the issue is about compassion and empathy. He simply fails to recognise that one can be compassionate and yet accept we live in an unfair world.

Children learn fairly early that there are limits to what one can do help sick animals, lost dogs etc. It seems some adults haven't grasped the fact.

Nearly all Australians are compassionate, but most are also rational. They recognise that even as a wealthy country we cannot take all the world's refugees, let alone all those in the Third World who want to access the better living conditions here.

So we decide how many we can help and set up a system to select which of the many applicants we will take. Understandably we get upset when this system is abused and when others simply ignore it.

I know it wouldn't be gripping television, but perhaps SBS should have a program called "Wait Your Turn". It could involve the participants meeting Sudanese refugees who have waited for years in camps and explaining to them that because some Iranians had more cash that the Sudanese families would have to wait a few more years. They could sit and go through our refugee budget working out how much self selected migrants take out of the system. They could talk to immigration officiials about the difficulty of dealing with well coached applicants with limitless free legal assistance.

Might not rate well, but would contrast the difference in approach: emotion versus reason. That is the great divide to which Mr Green refers.

To make decisions based on emotion is not a good way in which to live in the real world. Reason tempered with emotion is more likely to succeed, and that is what our current policy reflects.

Bek:

30 Aug 2012 9:03:55am

Yes. I have been thinking a lot about the last series. I was 'converted'. I have been reading an amount on the plight of refugees here.However, in my processing at the time and in the last week, I was disquieted by the situation in Jordan. The Iraqis who came by boat went from Iraq to Jordan. The program stated that there they had a roof and even minimal health care. Indeed the mother of one of the refugees is still there. At that point, those Iraqis have found refuge. By leaving Jordan, they have become economic refugees have they not?On the other hand, the three who were taken to see the refugee camp in Africa saw how awful living conditions were in the camps and learned just how long some people had been waiting. That wait is longer because the Iraqi men decided to leave Jordan and come to Australia.I appreciate this article and many of the preceding comments.

Bek:

30 Aug 2012 7:57:19pm

Marilyn, Perhaps reading the struggle in my thinking rather than reading into it would be more helpful. The name calling is called Ad Hominem Abusive and is a logical fallacy that is used to distract from a discussion or debate. I do not claim to have any answers, or to hold to the 'stop the boats' policy. I did not gather they were being mistreated in Jordan. I will look into that. Thank you for that.

Alpo:

30 Aug 2012 9:40:24am

"Wait Your Turn"... for how long, Terry?... "who have waited for years in camps "... Start by explaining to those refugees why they have been left waiting for years in the first place. Do you realise what the word "years" (note the plural) means when you are in a refugees camp? If you are told: wait for your turn... for years, OR ask your extended family, tribe or whoever to pull their resources together so you can have the "privilege" to risk your life in a few days boat trip and then eventually spend a few months in Nauru or Manus Island or Christmas Island under Australian custody, to then, with a variable probability of between 70% to 90+% be granted asylum to Australia, what would you do?...

Terry:

30 Aug 2012 9:59:58am

They know why they have been waiting for years. Only a few Western countries take refugees from the camps. Many incredibly wealthy countries take none. Saudi Arabia, Japan - why even Russia, China and Iran could assist.

But only the few (and heavily criticised) Western nations take those in the UN camps.

Those waiting know this. Do they know that others, not in camps, but able to catch a commercial flight to Indonesia, take places intended for them?

You do, but you choose to ignore it. There are no Sudanese making to Indonesia, no Burmese, no Congolese.

Alpo:

Terry:

Given the opportunity to invest say $10,000 for a return of vastly increased wealth for my family I would probably jump at it.

But that is not the question.

The question is whether should we encourage such actions by increasing the likellihood of success and the amount of the return.

I disapprove heartily of scalping tickets but I don't deny that the chance to buy tickets to an otherwise sold out concert might tempt me to buy some from a scalper. But heavy penalties for doing so would probably reduce the temptation.

rob1966:

barsnax:

30 Aug 2012 8:42:18am

I saw Angry Anderson on the Ray Martin Show one Thursday telling Australia about the dangers of teenage binge drinking. That night he was doing a gig at the Cambridge Hotel in Newcastle, pouring a jug of Margaritas down a young girl's throat using a hose and funnel. in my opinion the man has no credibility. Having said that it's no surprise that the results of this program reveal we live in racially divided country. As was stated in previous articles, if these people were white it would be a different story.

Billie Blue:

30 Aug 2012 11:22:52am

If they were white the boats would be turned around. If you don't believe me, I suggest you fill up a boat with white people and try to get to Christmas Island and get refugee processing. It will not happen.

jim:

30 Aug 2012 8:43:14am

Maybe the only long-term solution to the 45 million displaced persons is for countries like Australia and the US to stop invading their homelands and creating the refugee problem in the first place. we could also try not supporting brutal regimes like Sri Lanka, which force their Tamil minority to flee persecution by coming on leaky boats to countries like ours.

mike:

30 Aug 2012 10:10:33am

Ever heard of the Tampa? The Afghan refugees in that situation were fleeing the Taliban well before any U.S. troops invaded to oust the Taliban. You can't blame the world refugee crisis on the U.S. or "the West". The primary causes are overpopulation and dysfunctional or repressive cultures and regimes.

Marilyn:

mike:

30 Aug 2012 5:35:25pm

Right Marilyn, everything is the West's fault. You need to read your history regarding the Taliban. Reagan armed the mujahadeen against the Soviet occupation; some of them later formed the Taliban, but not because of Clinton.

frangipani:

30 Aug 2012 10:33:56am

@jim - the Afghans are fleeing the Taliban, not the invading forces. There'll be more of them when we pull out. The Iranians certainly aren't fleeing invaders. As for Sri Lanka, the government there is brutal, true - but the LTTE was arguably worse.

Kevin:

30 Aug 2012 8:45:25am

Most people are not in the position Reith is given his history on this topic and I believe that many minds could be changed on both the far right and far left on this issue if only the media were able to apply proper analysis and a strict adherence to facts.A very brief history dating only back to the last election: The coalition chose to demonise asylum seekers in the base political aim of winning votes calling them terrorists, cue jumpers and claiming it was an invasion. The government tried to keep some perspective in the debate by talking about how small the numbers were in relative terms, remember the "it would take 20 years to fill the MCG" statement. The media chose to push the coalition agenda with all its sensationalist even if inaccurate, claims. Eventually the government fell in line for fear of looking out of touch.To change minds on this issue all the media need to do is insist on a factual debate starting with:1. The coalition never actually stopped the boats. Deterrents are the key to a successful offshore solution. Howard put in place 3 deterrents. TPV's which never worked, check the facts. Turning back boats, which was very effective (but not 100%) until 2003 and has never worked since, check the facts. Processing in Nauru in which the deterrent survived the longest, but when it became clear asylum seekers sent there would end up in Australia or NZ, this deterrent was also gone.Fact- Not in any year of the Howard government was there no boat arrivals. Fact- Boat arrival numbers were increasing exponentially through the last years of the Howard government. In fact, if you look at the arrival numbers and trend in the Keating years and the subsequent spike in arrivals when Howard came to power with what happened between 2001-2008 you will find they are remarkably similar. (check the facts on the ABS site) Where is the debate about this?To change minds this is the first lie that needs to be debunked because it is the lie that the right use to stop debate. While ever this lie is allowed to continue you will never get those on the right to see the facts in perspective. How many times has Reith said on "Go back to where you came from" that Howard stopped the boats? He uses this one lie to claim superiority and score political points but this lie causes more problems than it solves.2. The greens and the left have no solutions to deaths at sea. If we were to implement all their proposals immediately then ignoring the 45 million or so refugees that are not in our region and looking only at the 350000 in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. We would process them all asap and find, based on past experience, approx. 300000 legitimate refugee's. We then safely relocate say 20000 to Australia, the problem has not been solve but it has been made bigger. Instead of 350000 uncertain refugees, you have 280000 approved refugees who know that they have no chance of getting into Australia, via the p

Kevin:

30 Aug 2012 9:16:50am

cont.getting into Australia, via the proper means, until next year's intake allocation, but if they can get themselves too Australia they will be getting out of detention and into Australian society, because their refugee status has already been approved.The best human outcome that can be hoped for is a system that stops people from getting on boats on one hand and supports the development of a regional processing centre, funded by the region, where those sent there can receive UNHCR standards of care while they wait.

frangipani:

30 Aug 2012 10:43:16am

@Kevin -

Sorry, I disagree with a lot of your points. It is untrue to argue that TPV's never worked - they did work, but only in conjunction with a panoply of other measures. And the Pacific Solution did work, at least until Kevin Rudd blew it away. As for turning back the boats, that was only ever a sideshow anyway. All together, the measures put in place did effectively stop the boats. Whether they would do so again is arguable, but at the time, yes, they worked.

And deterrence is only part of the key to a successful offshore solution; the other part of it is a realistic refugee determination process, which we have never had.

Oh, and as for exponential increase in boat numbers in the last years of the Howard government, well, yes, but then, you're starting from a base of 1 boat a year and going all the way up to 5 in 2007. That's not even statistically significant; the increase from 7 in 2008 to 60 in 2009 is.

As for your theory about processing offshore, the assumption that 280,000 out of 350,000 would be recognised and accepted is incorrect. Of the 50,000 who applied for resettlement offshore last year in our regions of the world, only 6,000 were accepted. So, you're more likely to have close to 300,000 persons rejected and still determined to take a crack at hopping on a boat.

Kevin:

30 Aug 2012 12:02:11pm

John & frangipani please tell me which year during the Howard government were ther zero boat arrivals?

Asylum seeker boats arrived every year of the Howard government, so how can you claim they stopped the boats? Yes I admitted their policy was very effective while the deterrent lasted but the all eventually failed hence the exponential increase in boat arrivals. Check the facts.

Kevin:

30 Aug 2012 2:49:48pm

Well at least you have acknowledged the FACT that the coalition did not stop the boats.

There are many factors effecting the flow of boats, push factors, realisation that the Pacific Solution no longer stopped asylumseekers getting into Australia, even the change of government has an impact. If you don't beleive me, have a look at the numbers arriving under Keating and what hapened when Howard came to power. It is very similar to what hapenned between 2001-2009.

By the way, there were only 2 years of 1 boat arriving and that was when the turning boats back deterrent was still possible.

Marilyn:

frangipani:

Dennis:

30 Aug 2012 8:50:31am

From my conversations with people I have found that most Australians are supportive of immigration including resettlement of genuine refugees sent here by the UNHCR, as long as the numbers are measured against economic, social and financing factors.

What most of us are angry about and strongly oppose is the effective green light shown to illegal immigrants (they are until accepted to be asylum seekers) who arrive on Suspected Illegal Entry Vessels (SIEV) without the documentation they had to have when they entered Indonesia by air.

The Coalition's Pacific Solution had for all intents and purposes stopped those boats and their paying passengers from coming. The reintroduction of offshore processing is a farce and will not be effective until all of the Pacific Solution deterrents are applied again including temporary protection visa only with no family reunion, half the accepted to be asylum seekers sent to other countries etc.

Australia cannot solve the world's genuine refugee problem but we can continue the resettlement program.

In conclusion, providing welfare benefits to asylum seekers that exceed what Australian citizens are receiving is unacceptable as is providing an Indonesia to Christmas Island Navy ferry service.

Marilyn:

30 Aug 2012 3:57:42pm

But our social things have nothing to do with it, how selfish are you and your friends?

There is nothing illegal about entering Australia without a visa, we pretend we are not jailing them because they don't have visas but we go off on these solo punishment jaunts to appease you and your ignorant friends.

How are we going to convince any country in our region to sign the refugee convention now when we so easily ignore it.

Because they now won't sign it, they will simply kick out more refugees and send them here.

Kitty:

30 Aug 2012 8:53:34am

I think you have hit the nail on the head. It is a reflection of our society and I have experienced it in my family and community.

Beginning with children overboard the extreme far right have tapped into the dark side of human nature with anger, fear and hatred. Shown so clearly by Michaelia Cash who shocks me when she spits out such hatred and venom.

Stangers arriving is a problem as old as mankind and not unique to today. As history shows people have reacted exactly as we are, yet we are not smart enough to sit down with cool heads.

This issue should never have become political, it demeans us all. It should have a bipartisan agreement where compassion, responsibility and intelligence is the norm. This can only find resoution with a regional agreement and extremists, be they left or right, should not be allowed to dominate the debate.

donna:

"extreme far right have tapped into the dark side of human nature with anger, fear and hatred"

So what does that make the Australian electorate who responded to that by re-electing the Howard government?

it's so easy to just blame someone and call them names, but those people are not some tiny isolated group, and the fact even the ALP has folded and gone back to the pacific solutions, means they get it

Dennis:

30 Aug 2012 11:12:13am

Yes, all Australians if not the vast majority. What we have right now is the direct result of this government abandoning Pacific Solution. And recently reintroducing offshore processing but without all of the deterrents that worked.

Dennis:

30 Aug 2012 11:10:18am

It is not humane to encourage people smuggling and place their paying passengers at risk travelling in small boats. It is also unfair to accept people smuggler clients' illegal entry even to claim asylum here as they are taking places on our resettlement program less wealthy genuine refugees cannot afford. And by destroying travel documents they are banking on their real past remaining a secret. So weak is our present government that even people who have attacked Navy personnel get through. An orderly immigration program and strict border control is fair to all Australians. We should maintain our long established genuine refugee resettlement, that the Howard Coalition supported, but we should also determine who enters our country.

Marilyn:

30 Aug 2012 3:58:39pm

So better they all die at home out of sight hey? There is no such thing as people smuggling, that is another lazy racist Australian lie that our moron media are well aware of and don't care to tell anyone.

frangipani:

30 Aug 2012 5:17:27pm

No such thing as people smuggling, you say? Just a lazy racist Australian lie put out by the moron media you say?

Hmm. Care to explain to me then, the existence of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime? Or why 112 countries have signed it? If it's all a lazy racist Australian lie, it would seem we have plenty of company.

frangipani:

This may be a repeat, and if so I apologise - but I can't let this comment go unanswered.

So, Marilyn, there is no such thing as "people smuggling." It's all a "lazy racist Australian lie" propagated by "moron media."

Explain to me please, if that is so, why there is a "United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children," supplementing the "United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime?" And why over 100 nations have signed that Protocol? If we're the racist morons you claim us to be, we seem to have a lot of company. Or perhaps it's just that you yourself are not nearly as informed as the moronic media you criticise.

GS:

30 Aug 2012 8:55:13am

It is all relative, instead of using a route of entry to Australia which is based on people escaping situations using significant cash resources to pay people smugglers to get them to a location where they can be taken into Australian custody.

It is seen as a way of getting people who do not support this route to soften their views, to show them the brutal reality of the journey.

Maybe supporters of this route of entry into Australia should be forced to confront the negative side of their position. They shoudl be taken into refugee camps around the world and just left there, with whatever slim chance of resettlement exists smashed by people using money to jump ahead in the queue.

Every single one of the refugees who comes via the boats means one less left to rot in a camp because they did not have enough money to get smuggled.

Joel:

30 Aug 2012 11:29:52am

I'm assuming you mean "one more left to rot" not one less ... but that's not the point.

I agree that refugees in camps in Sudan get screwed over by people coming that can afford to pay people smugglers and come to Australia on boats. That's not to say that the more wealthy are not equally as in need of protection.

I think an easy solution to this is to remove the link between on-shore and off-shore humanitarian intake. That is, the number of people coming to Australia on boats seeking asylum should NOT affect in any way the number of refugees we take from UN camps.

Not only does this make more sense for those refugees, but it also takes away an unnecessary distraction from the debate on "irregular maritime arrivals". The less distractions, the higher likelihood of working to an actual solution.

Marilyn:

Lord Lucan:

30 Aug 2012 8:56:56am

The debate over refugees has absolutely proven that you don't have to scratch the surface too hard to find that Australia is not the warm, welcoming multi cultural society we think we are and we have a strong undercurrent of ignorance and racism within our society. Not all 45 million displaced people want to come to Australia, the vast majority would have never heard of Australia. They want somewhere safe to have a future for themselves and their kids. The yellow, red, black peril is not descending. In spite of what people believe Australia takes a very small number of refugees and has an even smaller number who arrive by boat. Canada has proven itself to be the most caring society on the planet and we come a fair way down the scale. We have shock jocks like Jones and Hadley who espouse a 1950s view of Australia on a daily basis and commercial TV channels with almost all presenters from WASP backgrounds. I have the feeling that Labor knows it's doing the wrong thing reintroducing off shore processing but knows that it's electoral suicide to have a policy of on shore processing. What does that say about us as a society? It's clear that when Abbott becomes P.M our society will become more divided than ever and I for one will be hopping on a boat, plane, in fact anything to leave. Australia is not the caring society we once were. The joke of the whole off shore processing lie is that Howard never actually stopped the boats, he changed the definition so if they were sent to Manus or Nauru they were never included as boat arrivals. Almost all those who arrived during his term were accepted as refugees at a cost of over $600000 per refugee. This is sustainable?

frangipani:

30 Aug 2012 10:47:27am

@Lord Lucan - Canada does indeed have a reputation for being more caring, and has regularly granted status to considerably more asylum seekers than Australia ever sees, while still running an offshore resettlement program. The thing you're missing, however, is that Canada is has been having a very similar discussion about asylum issues for years, as indeed have all the EU countries. We are not alone or unique in struggling with this issue.

Oh, and the Nauru and Manus people were indeed counted in the boat arrival numbers. 1637 of them over a 7 year period.

frangipani:

30 Aug 2012 8:51:37pm

@rougeelephant - if you've ever been to Canada, you would know that the refugees Canada accepts stay there. It's not that easy to migrate from Canada to the US, for one thing, and for another, the climate in Canada may be lousy but the social net is better. Plus the Tamil community, for example, is far stronger in Toronto than anywhere in the US.

Taswegian:

morrgo:

30 Aug 2012 9:06:43am

The SBS series is one-sided and operates purely at the emotional level. There is no question that there are scores of millions of people worldwide who had to flee persecution, live in desperate conditions and deserve help. Anyone not accepting this is not a reasonable person.

The problem is the logical jump from this uncontestable fact to the proposition that Australia can solve this problem through a free-for-all to all applicants: all care, no responsibility.

The SBS should produce a new series for even-handedness: getting the participants demonstrate how to devise a long-term policy that fits with economic, political and social realities and does not compromise Australia's social and economic prospects - while assisting those in need.

I would like to see Ms Deveny trying to balance the budget, for example, rather than getting away with emotional backbiting.

Nick Swan:

30 Aug 2012 9:07:14am

Our leaders also have a responsibility to the national interest and the welfare of our existing society. Actually, that is their main priority.

Helping refugees may be an obligation, but it is secondary to the needs of people already here. Let's not make the same mistakes that Europe have made with their no go zones, riots and growing welfare states.

Jamil:

30 Aug 2012 9:12:32am

So far, the best moment for me was seeing Imogen Bailey force shock jock Michael Smith to confront his true feelings.

As they stood amid the hopeless situation in a refugee camp, she calmly tells him (words to the effect of) "Michael, I've seen you fall in love with these kids. You can't tell me you wouldn't do anything you could to get these kids out of this refugee camp if you were their father.... Michael, look at me. Don't turn away. You would do anything to save their lives if you were in tehir sitution, wouldn't you?"

David Nicholas:

30 Aug 2012 9:16:33am

Jonathon,

Like you, as I watched the show last night, I was thinking about how one changes one?s mind about issues.

So I have to say I have a great deal of sympathy for Peter Reith and I didn?t think I would. In my opinion Peter has politics to the right of Genghis Khan and he is either an advocate or apologist for the Liberal Party depending on the issue at the moment.

But I like Peter?s decency, which he has more of that he lets on and much more than he shows on the program.

Soul searching and profound moments in my own experience comes in solitary silence and in meditation where few things are present to influence or distract focus to allow emotion to nurture and have an effect on reasonable thought.

For me, that experience happened camped out on the badlands of South Dakota on the Pine Ridge Indian reservation. There I broke down the intellectual construct of my personal values and rebuilt then incorporating new feelings and new information about what I was and who I am now. It took better part of six weeks to go through a renewal process of the self. It takes time and you need to make time to do it.

This either makes you a better human being or it doesn?t. One hopes it will.

So, when you are the spot, with a TV camera recording your every word, emotion and interaction and when you have invested so much in an intellectual position, backing down at that moment, is not an option. To do so has a lot of ramifications.

As you say there is just too much riding on the issue with Peter the key articulator as Minister responsible when he was in government and with people?s memories still very fresh that he did that.

That he can change his mind at any time in the future is very much on the cards. But he can?t do it in public before he has private and personal time to think it through.

A case in point is Malcolm Fraser, who these days sounds so much like Gough Whitlam I have to do a double take just to check that it?s him.

However, at some point, one needs to atone for past deeds and so the mind changes. It?s not about whether the deed is right or wrong, but in reassessing whether the action was the right one at the time.

So Peter?s response on The Drum doesn?t surprise me, but the experience that I saw in him on the show tells me he was having moments where his deep seated values came very much into question.

Emotion is a pretty powerful instrument at any time. It demands that you either embrace it right there or you shut it down. Peter shut it down, but the experience didn?t go away and he won?t forget it.

Michael Smith on the other hand, that?s another matter. God have pity on him.

Professor Rosseforp:

30 Aug 2012 9:17:11am

"We are a country deeply divided" -- I think this may need correcting to "we are a commentariat deeply divided, with many in the community also divided". I would guess there are lots of people out there who have little or no interest in the subject, and wish the commentariat would stop seeing themselves as barometers for the whole country's political interests.By their choice of career, political analysts are interested in politics and issues, and many Australians are interested in neither. We can see some proof of this at our elections, where many people don't register to vote. A further 5% of eligible voters choose to vote informally, and many more THINK they are voting informally when they cast a donkey vote or reverse donkey vote. Lots of others vote by rote.There certainly are some community divisions about asylum seekers, but also about Aboriginal welfare, dental health, superannuation, car insurance, speeding fines, bingo, rugby league, badminton, AC/DC, and climate change.

Colmery:

30 Aug 2012 9:18:42am

You write; "Is there anything harder to change than a mind? Probably not". You didn't write, but perhaps meant that it's hard to change someome's emotional response.

We humans are largely emotional beings. We are swept along by our herd because of the brains we have. Unless those who by dint of their wealth or other vehicles of influence choose to encourage us to selflessness, we are by nature selfish and greedy.

In democracy we sacrifice leadership by the wisest to avoid dominance by the most violent, and end up led by the most sleazy. If those in the media who are able to shift the balance a little away from the sleaze instead choose populism, then we are doomed to decline.

Alpo:

30 Aug 2012 9:20:00am

Thanks Jonathan for your thoughts. I think that one of the greatest obstacles to a proper evaluation of the refugees issue is the strength of scaremongering images. No matter how moved you may be by the personal tragedies of those asylum seekers and refugees, you can always retort by imagining hordes of millions descending upon this country overnight, flipping the whole culture, laws, customs upside down, resulting in chaos, uncertainty and a situation not too different to that of their native countries ("if they did that there, they will do it here"). The Coalition hard-core supporters and their leaders will never ever refuse to exploit that fantasy for all what is worth. But change will happen, although step by step.As for the program, I must say that I am watching with great interest Angry Anderson's reactions. Although I think he is fully in with the "hordes of millions" metaphor, his background is obviously working class, and he does have the ability to establish an emotional and also rational connect with those battered by the events of life. I may be proven wrong by future events, but I am happy to venture the prediction that Angry Anderson will make good use of this experience in the future...I couldn't fail to notice that little bit of pro-Howardian propaganda about "there is no doubt that the Pacific Solution stopped the boats"... No, it's not that simple, I am afraid!

P of Adelaide:

30 Aug 2012 9:21:04am

You're right that the show is intended to try and push a certain point of view. That's why most of the people who watch the show will already be supporters of a soft approach to Boat People. Preaching to the converted. That is also why I don't watch the show. Because I know it's not an unbiased program and it's aim is not to educate, but to push a political view. People who think like I do hate being preached to by do gooders who pretend to be "educating the plebs". I've travelled widely and I know the conditions in other countries first hand. It still doesn't change my mind.

Zaf:

John Coochey:

30 Aug 2012 3:56:41pm

Well if he is not I am, at least as far as Afghanistan is concerned it has always been one of the poorest countries on earth and the level of poverty has not changed much in recent years if anything there is more prosperity. Why should some in dire straights who is a refugee get more help than someone equally poor who is not?

P of Adelaide:

30 Aug 2012 6:11:56pm

It's not OUR fault about anything !!If you want to feel guilty for no reason then go right ahead.I'll just keep counting my blessing that I had the good fortune to be born here. We can't fix the worlds problems and believing that we can is naive. These countries and their people have to do it themselves and taking their best (and richest) doesn't help.

Fran:

30 Aug 2012 9:24:02am

A show like this is dishonest unless it presents the full picture - on the Australian side as well. They should include examples of people like 'captain emad' with his many shops, & comfortable lifestyle, giving false identity; pretending to be a refugee & getting straight through; receiving government supplied separate lavish brick houses, not only for himself, but others for his family as well - within months of arriving here. I'd also like to see the program showing the stories of many Australians who are turned away from shelters, because they're too full & can't cope with the numbers needing help; the thousands of homeless Australians. It should also include a comparison of how much of Australian taxpayer's money is being spent on providing shelter & care for our own homeless, desperate & needy; compared to what is being spent on providing for asylum seekers who travel through many countries to come here.

They also should show a comparison of what our country is giving to asylum seekers during the process; food, shelter, mobile phones with free phone calls, computer access, recreational facilities, lawyers, mental health team watching over their emotional state, medical, dental, clothing, toys for the kids, exercise facilities, entertainment, & so on... comparing it to what our own desperately needy homeless citizens receive to help them & get them out of their dreadful situation. I think the comparison would be revealing, & it would at least be a more honest presentation of the facts.

SBS, there are plenty of overcrowded shelters you could take your film crew to - or why not go out on the streets at night, under bridges, on park benches, on shop steps; or try looking in the trains for people who have nowhere safe & warm to sleep at night; young teenagers in danger; mums & kids sleeping in cars; people languishing on government housing waiting lists for a decade or so. There are so many desperate people in our own country. They're not fighting their own countrymen over religion or territory disputes, so maybe it's not dramatic enough for a TV film crew; but their suffering is just as real, even if it is hidden away & overlooked by governments. If we spent the exact same amount on our own desperate & needy, that we've been throwing out hand-over-fist to asylum seekers, most of these problems would be solved. If that were to happen & there was still some left over to provide for the needy from other countries, then I'm sure Australians would be far more supportive of the whole situation. But whilst we have this huge disparity in how our government treats our own needy, compared to what is being provided to those arriving here demanding asylum - (especially when we know that there is organised rorting of the system occurring) - it's a bit much to expect full support by the Australian people whose taxes are paying for every bit of it.

Joel:

30 Aug 2012 11:35:44am

Hey Fran. Why don't you stop whining and go pitch a show about any of those issues you raised to SBS? TV channels are crying out for interesting shows. Or you could donate some money to help those people. Or some time. Stop being part of the problem and conflating asylum seekers with every other ill of this world.

Tiresias:

30 Aug 2012 12:24:42pm

It is interesting to see so many people crying out on behalf of our own poor and needy because refugees are receiving help. Yet when there is talk about helping our poor, there is the cry that our poor should be helping themselves and not relying on the 'nanny' state or entitlements or welfare. Then those who advocate government help are labeled as 'socialists' opposed to those 'hardworking' citizens from whom the government 'steals' their money and gives to someone else. It is a mixed up world. So when facts are presented about the plight of these people who dare to want to come to our country by 'invading' our borders, the cry is that it is political propaganda playing on the heart strings. What that view ignores is that not revealing those facts plays upon fear and loathing and and a sense of envy that someone else might be getting something we are not getting. In fact the refugees are pursuing the same values espoused by the very people who want to repel them: self-reliance, personal freedom, opportunity and competition, choosing their own course, achieving their highest potential and most deeply held goals, doing their best for themselves and their families. Think about it. Life is too short to be stuck in dysfunctional country or a muddy camp. We all seek after somthing better.

Fran:

30 Aug 2012 1:31:03pm

No it's simply a reality. Our tax revenue is not like the magic pudding, even though refugee advocates seem to think it is. We already apparently don't have enough money to fund a proper disability insurance scheme, a public dental scheme - we apparently can't afford to provide shelter & care for all the homeless Australians. Our mental health system cannot prevent a high youth suicide rate; nor look after the many mentally ill who were turned out of institutions years ago, to save money, & were left with no protection or care. There is not infinite taxpayer dollars to be given away to people from other countries seeking a better life here.

You don't seem to understand that there are limits to what any country can do about this problem, which will never be solved until the massive human overpopulation problem is properly addressed, as well as civilisations evolving beyond religious fundamentalism. That's not something we have the power to change; change must come from within the cultures that are producing so many refugees. We do not have unlimited capacity to 'save' all the world's displaced, or to provide a better quality of life for those simply wanting to use our refugee intake for economic reasons.

What we *do* have a responsibility for, is to look after our fellow Australians. So some people complain about a 'nanny state'? That doesn't mean I do, nor others who want to see 'charity begin at home'. As for laying out the red carpet to all customers of the people smugglers, that's OK only so long as our own citizens in need have received the exact same level of treatment & care, & so long as we can afford it & still look after our own citizens. That's not happening at present.

It's strange how refugee advocates seem to treat their own countrymen in desperate circumstances with contempt; maybe they don't get that feeling of smug superiority & importance advocating for fellow Australians - and the advocates wouldn't get to stand in their ivory tower & throw such hateful insults at those who don't agree with them, either.

Marilyn:

30 Aug 2012 4:06:09pm

We just don't blame the man with no feet because we have no shoes.

The expense is what we impose on our selves, it is unnecessary, illegal and ridiculous to spend $140,000 a year jailing one person while giving $3.60 in aid per person per year in Afghanistan and pretending we are good.

David:

30 Aug 2012 9:27:11am

We in Australia are facing similar problems to countries such as Spain, Italy ,Greece and others in Europe with refugees and I would say those countries would be as divided in how to deal with the influx of people who are seeking safer living standards and prosperous futures for their children. I once had a naive belief we in this country were such good people, mateship, look after and greet people, the lucky country. The more this sad situation continues I feel we are the selfish mob, and it saddens me when I here some of the biggotted terms thrown around by us towards these people. It concerns me, some might be 'dangerous', but most just want a good safe life. I hope one day people do stop coming, so as we don't here of another boat sinking.

Nellie:

30 Aug 2012 9:33:31am

I fear your words are too strong Jonathon. But Reith, yes, he's stuck and comes from the group that politicised this issue in the first place, for no reason other than their own political gain. It's not the refugees that divide us, we all want to help, it's the political leadership.Reith blew me apart when told by that refugee who was sent back from Nauru that he fled because he had worked for the coalition as an interpreter. Reith, rejecting any guilt, said 'well, he had a choice, he didn't have to work for us'.I hope Reith's boat gets sent back.

Swee:

30 Aug 2012 9:41:33am

It is telling that Jonathon says he does not expect participants who profess support for an "open, irregular immigration policy" will not change their mind. Is that because they genuinely can't see beyond their narrow point of view or is it because they try to push the "I am right and you're wrong" attitude down other's throat? The two episodes so far show a huge humanitarian crisis in the world and a woman rudely berating the other participants who hold different viewpoints to her.

John Coochey:

30 Aug 2012 9:49:30am

"Reith is moved, clearly, by an encounter on the outskirts of Kabul with a man who was on the Tampa, who was transferred to Nauru, and whose application for asylum was eventually denied" WHO IS STILL ALIVE AND WELL! At least he looked asiatic which is the way Hasaras are supposed to look unlike the Caucasian one interviewed in Australia but what would I know I have only bee to Afghanistan three times. A point missed on the low grade reality TV show was that the "Somali Refugee" obtained false documents and bought an air ticket to fly to Australia from Germany. I did not know before that that Germany was persecuting Somalis. It is also interesting that many if not all of his family were alive and well in Somalia including a grandmother who was 101.

Paul01:

30 Aug 2012 9:52:19am

The SBS program is confronting viewing and has left me more confused.

I see the suffering and feel distraught for the people but there are so many. What to do?

If we could help those suffering where they are now it may work out to be better for them and for us. They do not have to risk traversing dangerous land and ocean journeys and we reduce the need for people to seek asylum.

Maybe stopping the wars and offering more aid may be the answer?

I also watched Dateline after the first episode and I found this program to be equally disturbing. It appears there is a covert policy in Sri Lanka with the aim of forcing Tamils onto boats.

Sri Lanka appears to be sending its problem off shore.

The whole asylum seeker issue is vexed and unless we help people suffering in their home countries with aid, education and birth control then they will continue to want what we take for granted, a free and safe life in the lucky country.

mike:

30 Aug 2012 9:58:09am

I was impressed in a negative way by the refugee who was asked if he had paid someone for his fake passport that got him into Australia by plane. He denied paying for it, then was asked if he was sure about that, and his response was to yell at the questioner, calling him a "racist who hates Africans" and ordering him out of his house! Which we taxpayers probably paid for. Somehow I can't imagine that particular refugee engendering much sympathy from viewers. He was clearly lying - of course he had to pay someone for his fake passport that he got in Germany so he could fly to Australia. Why deny the obvious?

whatdoctor:

30 Aug 2012 9:58:35am

I did not see last year's episodes but I did watch the first of this series. It brought home to me how terrible the plight of some of these people is. I could not help but feel sorry for them. It is sad that there are millions of people whose standard of living is so far below that of our own.

Having said that, I feel I must hold my heard hard and say we should not just open the door to all and sundry - for this would surely be to the detriment of my way of life (and that of my family).

I am also perplexed by the ability of a refugee to choose which country they would like to save them - by travelling around the globe to Australia. Surely there are other countries closer to home to whom they could apply for refuge. if these countries then find themselves overwhelmed, they could arrange to send them to us via the appropriate channels - and we could apply our own quota to protect our way of life.

The fact that the show seems to skip over these points makes me think the producers must have a political agenda. Tugging at heart strings has proven to be very effective in campaigns like the anti-abortion campaign showing things I would rather not describe.

jane:

GORDON THOMAS:

30 Aug 2012 10:00:19am

Yes, Peter Reith is correct when he says the political reaction to issues on asylum seekers is unlikely to be conditioned by an emotional reaction to the desperate plight of individuals. The issues are far broader. Asylum seekers should be made aware that if they cannot produce any indenity of who they are, or where they come from have to go to the end of the line before gaining admittence into Australia. No one are far as I have seen or heard has asked the asylum seekers why they have no documentation or any identity. How were they able to gain access into Indonesia with out a valid passport. This to my way of thinking is not un anreasonable request.

Catherine Deveny and Imogen Bailey are far too emotional to be give an assignment of the type. They acts purely on knee jerks reaction when they sees thing that upset them.

If last nights episode (Wednesday 29th August 2012) Michael Smith seems to be the only one that has made an offer to bring back to Australia an orphan boy that he has befriended.

It would be a lot better for these so called dogooders to adopt some of the children they profess to have a compassion for instead of paying lip service to the plight of the asylum seekers.

Mark James:

Gordon, here's what Malcolm Fraser wrote recently in The Age about the myth of asylum seekers arriving without documents:

'Arriving without a passport is not the same as arriving with no documents . . . While people may arrive without a passport, it does not mean they do not have other identity documents.

'There are numerous reasons people arrive without a passport: they may not have one, they have had to hand it over to people smugglers, or they have panicked and destroyed it because it is their identity that has caused persecution, torture and imprisonment in the past. Further to this, to prove an asylum seeker is a refugee, identity documents must be provided.'

The crucial line here is the last one. It's so simple it's worth repeating:

'To prove an asylum seeker is a refugee, identity documents must be provided.'

mike:

30 Aug 2012 12:50:54pm

Which leads back to my point: Even if they are fake, as one of the refugees on Go Back Where You Came From admitted. He got his fake passport (which he denied paying for and was caught in a lie) in Germany, where he presumably was NOT being persecuted when he then boarded a plane to Australia using that fake passport to gain entry.

mike:

30 Aug 2012 3:12:56pm

Thanks Mark, but there are plenty of cases of people being accepted as refugees who later turned out to be fakes. Ever hear of Captain Emad for example? There have been plenty of others exposed over the years.

frangipani:

30 Aug 2012 1:28:28pm

"'To prove an asylum seeker is a refugee, identity documents must be provided.'"

Interesting, but, I believe, untrue. Plenty of refugees, whether in the camps or arriving on boats, do not have documents. All DIAC can do is "fix" their identity so that they cannot change identities later - it can never definitively identify many of these people in the absence of reliable documents.

And you cannot deny someone refugee status merely because he has no documents. You can only deny him status if he doesn't have a credible claim, or because he's inadmissible by virtue of being a war criminal. Not being able to prove who you are doesn't count.

Mark James:

frangipani:

30 Aug 2012 8:40:17pm

In a word, yes. I don't believe Malcolm has a "hands on" experience of how DIAC and the tribunals and courts actually operate. He may believe you have to prove who you are to make a refugee claim, but I firmly believe he's mistaken. Almost any document, however flimsy, will be taken, and if you have no documents at all your application must still be processed.

Jmn:

Gr8Ape:

30 Aug 2012 10:04:58am

Is it really that healthy for a country to define itself by it's fear and paranoia?

That's what seems to be the outcome of today's populist political environment. Leaders are reluctant to lead, professional advice is ignored, advertising campaigns win millions/billions for this or that interest group...

The deluge of information that people are exposed to, the misinformation, the oversimplification, the industry of rage...

The value of a democratic vote is being diminished by this, the value of democracy being consequently undermined, the erratic and counter productive governance this produces.

It's not that great. It's time for our democratic leaders to lead and for the population to trust them to do so. Otherwise, what's the point?

PS. Ban politicians and political parties from making promises in the lead up to elections. It could only help.

AT:

GBWYCF is just another reality TV show and so far it has followed the well trodden path of the crap TV from which it takes its inspiration; first there was Big Brother then Celebrity Big Brother, first some dancing show then Dancing with the Stars.

The next series of GBWYCF will have to feature human rights lawyers arguing the merits of participants' performance with Scott Morrison and then the viewers will call in to decide who wins. That's the only way to keep the franchise alive.

The only coverage I've seen about this show has been gossipy appraisals of the celebs -- nothing about the actual subject of asylum seekers and their solemn and grave story. The fact that GBWYCF, (nothing more than a combination of Big Brother and the Great Race), is being held up as some sort of serious exploration of our cultural mores is thoroughly obscene.

There'll be no profound self-insight by looking at our "mirror image", there'll just be the same narcissistic barracking we witness on other equalling inconsequential and exploitative reality TV shows.

What makes this more obscene than the others is the callous capitalising on anguished and desperate people so that we can enjoy the grotesque spectacle of "celebrities" supposedly being tormented.

The Lauper:

mike:

30 Aug 2012 10:14:45am

The very title of the show is misleading and the plot disingenous. Instead of going to Somalia and Kabul they should've gone to Indonesia and Malaysia because that is where the boatpeople came from. It would've been more honest and reality-based to interview refugees in Indonesia and Malaysia about their situation.

Reinhard:

30 Aug 2012 10:16:38am

Jonothan I couldn't agree more, I watched both episodes and noted that the the sympathetic protagonists , Catherine Deveny, Allan Asher and Imogen Bailey, only had an emotional investment, their public persona does not really hinge on their reaction to the situations they faced as the others.In stark contrast were the other three, Peter Reith was just being Peter Reith, as he will always be. His reaction to hearing the Hazara man reel off the list of Hazaras that were forcibly returned to Afghanistan and subsequently killed was initially mild shock, but then he took his usual cowards' route, and just wanted to get the hell out of there , fast! Michael Smith was much the same, his rudeness toward Abdi the Somali refugee was unbelievable, he had just been told a horrific story of how he had escaped death, but Smith was more concerned with the fact that Abdi had arrived here with forged documents. Bravo Abdi, I would have shown him the door too! I thought perhaps that Smith had changed when he was moved to tears by the plight of one young boy in the Ethiopian refugee camp but his reaction was the usual conservative "I should do something" rather than "we should do something". While I admire his desire to adopt that young boy, I also know that kind of "conspicuous charity" never lasts. Conservatives love to show the world how charitable they are, which is why they will show all and sundry pictures of their sponsored child, or the well they helped to build, but they do tend to move on..Of the three I hold out the most hope for Angry Anderson, as he seemed genuinely moved by the whole experience and of the three I believe that he would have come home a different , better man.

OUB :

30 Aug 2012 4:15:29pm

So you weren't even curious about why Abdi flew from Germany, surely a safe haven, to Australia on someone else's passport? Why did he agree to appear in the program if he was so sensitive about answering questions? Wasn't he there to confront the guests with uncomfortable truths? Seemed like odd behaviour to me.

From my perspective 'we should do something' translates into 'our government should spend taxpayers' funds doing something to make me feel better'. It is always easier to be generous with someone else's money. Why curl the lip up at people sponsoring children? Is this really the preserve of the right? I am sure many on the left would do the same thing. Does it matter if they display the photos to make themselves feel better, left or right? I don't sponsor anyone and evidently you don't so I think the point you were trying to make has been lost here. But the point about conspicuous charity came over as conspicuously uncharitable. Do you want to rethink that part of your comment?

I have no idea what Smith would do, I have never seen or heard him prior to this series. It would be foolish of him to make a decision on such a matter when he was so emotional. It wasn't something he was trying to rush out into the public arena, he was responding to Bailey's probing I think. Naturally Smith would want to discuss the possibilities with his wife (and kids?). I think there was some mention of two previous marriages so the stability of his relationship would require extra thought.

Haven't seen much of Anderson, missed the first half of the second episode.

Reinhard:

30 Aug 2012 6:43:37pm

OUB , Abdi wasn't being "sensitive about answering questions", he was totally offended, as should you, at Smith's behaviour. And re Germany I wasn't curious at all because I know the facts, as should you..I am of German descent (hence the name ) and I frequently travel to Germany so I know a thing or two about the place. Germany (along with France) are staging points for African and Eastern European refugees and Germany and Grance accept far more refugees than we do , and have to turn away many, many more. You want numbers?

Escerpt from "At-a-glance: Who takes the most asylum claims?""Of the 10.4 million refugees under UNHCR's mandate between 2005 and 2009, the largest numbers were being hosted by Pakistan (1,740,711), Iran (1,070,488), Syria (1,054,466), Germany (593,799), Jordan (450,756), the UNHCR's '2009 Global Trends' report reveals. The five major refugee-hosting countries accounted for almost half (47 per cent) of people deemed refugees by UNHCR.They were followed by Kenya (358,928), Chad (338,495), China (300,989), Vietnam (339,300), Eritrea (209,200) and Serbia (195,600).

Australia was ranked 47th, hosting 22,548 refugees between 2005 and 2009 (0.2 per cent of the global total)."http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1294102/At-a-glance-Who-takes-the-most-asylum-claims

frangipani:

Last I heard, Greece had something like a 99% refusal rate on asylum claims. It's been under pressure from the UNHCR and the EU for years because it's so recalcitrant. It does not accept refugees.

And, to be clear, if Germany is "turning away" refugees, it is in violation of the Convention. It shouldn't be a staging point at all: if a refugee arrives on its territory, it is Germany's responsibility, unless that refugee set foot in another EU country first. The numbers are irrelevant. That's the whole point of the discussion. If Abdi was in Germany, he should have claimed asylum there; he had no right to move on from one signatory country to another. The Convention is very clear that once an asylum seeker gets to a signatory country, that's it. He doesn't get to choose which signatory he's going to go to.

As for "hosting refugees" - yes, Pakistan has close to two million refugees on its territory. It doesn't give them asylum, and it doesn't pay for their upkeep. It gives them temporary status and donor countries do the rest. You cannot compare the situation of countries of first asylum with Convention countries.

Compare like with like - Australia with other western, industrialised countries. Then you will have a clearer picture.

Tom1:

30 Aug 2012 10:18:02am

What amazes me in most discussions on this issue is the avoidance of so much of the unpleasant truth because we are probably ashamed of it.

Australians are happy, in the main with their culture, and our dominant Christian religion. Post world war 11 immigration programmes did not interfere with that, and in fact actually strengthened it. (Snowy mountains scheme)

Most migrants assimilated, if their parents did not, the children did, and after a while there was no real sign of opposing cultures or religion.

The influx of people from the Middle East saw a new religion, mosques, mode of dress,and culture. It soon became obvious that these two cultures were not harmonious, and would always remain divergent.

The "Children Overboard " episode was a blatant political attempt to stir misgivings in the Australian population, and in this Peter Reith did his bit by attempting to show visual evidence of this actually happening. The Government was cautioned that preliminary reports may not have been accurate but it did not retract.

Labor, obviously politically wedged, as it is today, reacted as you would expect , and threatened to undo the "Pacific solution" Many Australians at that time were not too happy with the politicisation of the situation.

Because we as a nation do have an element of racism within us we are not prepared to accept all of the peoples from refugee camps that want to come here, and stopping the boats with an orderly intake seems to be the only solution.

The Liberal party still thinks it is on a winner, and they now have the confidence to openly,(which they do on a daily basis) praise Howard's policies. which were once considered my many to be abhorrent.

Many will protest that for them it is not a matter of racism, but they hate queue jumpers. This excuse for their stand on the matter has an air of dishonesty about it.

It is a pity that the Governments of this nation have been re elected and may again regain power on the divisive issue of boat people. It is certainly a flaw in our system of Government, and something to be deplored..

David wants freedom of truth:

30 Aug 2012 10:19:48am

Most asylum seekers are awarded refugee status. As long as there are one or two who do try and take advantage of the system though, those few will always be enough for the hard right to condemn every other refugee.That tactic isn't working as well as it used to though, which is why the hard right are changing their manipulation of facts to the idea of 'mercy'- they claim they are disuading people (fleeing persecution, torture and death) from risking themselves on the dangerous journey here.And as a last line of defence against an 'open door' policy (or at least, what we use for fly-ins), they quote vast numbers like 43 million for the entire world, instead of our current insignificant 20,000 refugees which is less than half the 50,000 kiwis that move here every year.

The debate is not about refugees at all- it's a debate between those smart enough to see how we can help those in need and those too dumb to try.

frangipani:

30 Aug 2012 1:32:09pm

No, the debate is between those who are smart enough to understand that this is a mixed movement of genuine refugees and economic migrants, and those who believe that getting on a boat is prima facie evidence that one must be a genuine refugee.

The debate is between those who want to help the genuine and bar the fake, and those who think every one is genuine, or who don't care that some are not.

David wants freedom of truth:

30 Aug 2012 3:33:23pm

That's right. Many of us don't care that some are not genuine refugees. We already have on shore processes in place to send back 'fake' refugees. Punishing thousands of innocents by processing them off shore because a few are taking advantage of the system is expensive and redundant.

el-viejo:

30 Aug 2012 10:29:07am

No offence, but I know an advertising campaign when I see one.

The hope and premise of Go Back seems to be that positions on asylum seekers, that most vexed of Australian political questions, might shift through exposure to the compelling force of professional scriptwriting, professional casting, professional photography with exotic visuals, and professional musicians adding a great, haunting audio track. Plus a good dollop of slick PR and marketing of the production. All of the above fully paid for by the State and Federal Government agencies meticulously listed in the credits.

Just who is spending a large amount of public money on an effort to shift public opinion into favour of spending even more public money on a potentially bottomless item, and why?

No hard questions are ever pursued to conclusion in the program. The successful Somali refugee with a nice house in Australia had flown in from Germany on a false or stolen passport in another name. Why had he not been returned to Germany? Was he escaping persecution by the Germans? Instead, we get to see a group of friends and relatives keen to follow him to Australia.

In a 'Dateline' segment on Sri Lanka screened immediately after the previous episode we get to see the work of an unknown genius, who has paid Sri Lankan cable TV networks to have Australian Tourist Commission ads (with visuals of gleaming beaches and sophisticated Western cities) screening in tea houses to the desperately poor Tamils in of Colombo. Nobody attempts to correct or contradict their excited banter that Australia welcomes all with a free house and 100,000 rupees handout.

To paraphrase the SBS signature slogan: There are billions of sad stories.

creme brulee:

30 Aug 2012 5:45:41pm

I think, old man, that the point of the program is to do away with many of the myths and lies that surround this issue. Once you start putting human faces and stories to the people we dismiss so lightly as (here insert generic label), you might start seeing this issue as a fiendishly difficult issue of humanity and not a cheap stunt in which people are either demonised or canonised en mass for political purposes.

For the record, like most people who grappled with this issue I think something has to be done to stem the flow for a range of reasons and that the 'something' is necessarily going to be painful or inhumane for those people caught up in our action. I supported Malaysia (and still do) as the only step that has a chance of being effective. In my strong opinion (shared by every expert on the matter - DIAC and the Houston panel - Nauru alone will not be enough because the prospect of resettlement in Australia is still left on the table.

But at the least, we have to get away from dehumanising the people, the individuals who are caught up in this pipeline.

el-viejo:

30 Aug 2012 9:35:12pm

creme brulee: I agree it has certainly put faces and backgrounds to the issue in my mind, particularly as it was very well done as a documentary production. However, I felt depressed after watching it, for it canvasses no answers to what looks likwe quite an intractable problem.

No one can save Afghanistan or Sri Lanka by taking away from the country all people forming one of the parties to the conflict.

I'm afraid that the idea of sending 800 people to Malaysia might have been overtaken by events and the sheer weight of numbers. It looks quite likely that both Nauru and Manus Island might be over capacity before they actually open...

How to take away from the table the prospect of resettlement in Australia while still providing protection? I don't know, that's a hard one. Permanent resettlement on Nauru or in PNG maybe, paid for by extra development aid to the respective Governments of both of these countries? Many will say that's effectively life imprisonment on Devil's Island. But do the Nauruans and the PNG nationals feel imprisoned? We have to provide protection to the refugees, but not necessarily the Western lifestyle...

don't ask don't tell:

30 Aug 2012 10:40:16am

As you said Johnathan there is no changing hearts and minds on this matter. Even when people are presented with the 'real' truth. For such a non-issue, it is incredible that without fail there is as least 1 Drum article per week devoted to this subject.

Since there is no changing of hearts and minds, please Drum desist in publishing stories on this subject. It just serves to create an undeserved wealth of ill-feeling towards this group of incredibly traumatised, vulnerable and disadvantaged who have surely suffered enough.

Global Business Model:

30 Aug 2012 10:49:26am

We need the EU, America, Australia etc to encourage and set up a program where big multi-nationals can fill large gaps in the skilled workforce from qualified people within these camps. It will have to be done in a way that avoids exploitation at the other end.

There must be numerous electricians, civil engineers, doctors etc who have been displaced and are stuck in camps in both Africa and South-East Asia.

Our Priminister could push for such a unilateral program with Britain, the EU, America, NZ and Canada. Australia could also lead by example. This is a self-determination model, it gives security and employment to the displaced without a massive burden to the tax payer and it is good for the economy.

One might even suggest that multi-nationals are obliged to first look for qualified people from within these camps before advertising to more affluent countries or via the traditional means. The UN with the assistance of private funding could work with organizations like the UNHCR to set up a skilled advertisement program. Anyone who arrives at a camp gives, along with their identification, a list of their skills and qualifications that is then uploaded onto a database that companies can gain easy access to. A site like that would need adequate security so that it couldn't be tapped into by anyone the person was in danger from and the safety of having details uploaded onto a global employment pool would of course have to be taken into account. If businesses were gaining from such a site, one could also imagine their willingness to assist in funding it.

We need to get out of our heads an images of these camps as an end point of impossible surmounting hopelessness. It clearly need not entirely be if governments and business can get THE VISION and go for it.

frangipani:

30 Aug 2012 1:34:38pm

@Global Business Model: here's the problem with your solution. The UNHCR reckons that, of the 20 odd million people on its books, about 800,000 are suitable for third country resettlement. That leaves 19 million who have no education, no skills and nothing to offer your multinationals.

mike:

30 Aug 2012 10:55:53am

How many refugees should Australia accept each year? And what do we do about those who turn up who exceed that number each year? How do we stop the drownings? Those are the real issues here, not calling others names or arguing over who is more or less compassionate.

Peter of Perth:

30 Aug 2012 10:58:20am

If anyone thinks that this country, with it's infrastructure collapsing everywhere through underfunding, not enough water, not enough hospitals, police, teachers & doctors, roads in a deplorable state, some bordering on third world standards and our 'leaders' slashing budgets everywhere and creating new taxes and increasing charges everywhere to pay for their waste, the same idiots selling taxpayer owned assets for their short term gain etc etc etc, can continue like this without something giving, then they are living in la la land. And how many billions of taxpayer's dollars are going to support the Rudd/Gillard illegal immigrant industry? No doubt I will be branded with the usual quaint labels so loved by the handwringers that can't, or refuse, to see the wood for the trees and the truth of what is happening to this country and it's being brough upon us by the most dishonest and incompetent so called government in Australia's history. It's way past the time when Australian's started to demand that the federal governemt stop trying to save the world by giving away billions of taxpayer's dollars and started to spend those dollars in Australia. One day someone in a leadership role might realise that Australia simply can't save the world and nor should we.

Tom1:

30 Aug 2012 12:41:18pm

Peter of Reith: Are we to assume that a Liberal Government will suddenly have no expenditures so far as refugees are concerned? The initial building of Nauru, together with the rest of Howard's policy is said to have cost over 1bn.

Are you also trying to tell us that the Coalition was big on infrastructure/ What is your proof on this?

You are really on a rant, and if you want people to take you seriously, try being a bit more factual. You do sound a bit like Peter Reith.

Anthony:

30 Aug 2012 10:59:41am

A TV show visiting the vast majority of people living in poor countries and on how they live is going to be challenging. But the reality is we can't have billions of people move to Australia or other western countries. If anything like this happened, these countries would become poor.

elixa:

daniel:

30 Aug 2012 12:34:13pm

Ethnicity is irrelevant. It's the effect that people would have on Australia and Australian communities. If the effect is detrimental due to cultural differences, lack of skills, or inability to contribute then why would we ever encourage or condone it?

Dennis:

30 Aug 2012 11:21:46am

Australia has maintained an orderly immigration program for a very long time. Also a refugee resettlement program that has not been opposed by most Australians. Pacific Solution effectively stopped the people smuggler boats from coming as the DFAT record shows. Labor abandoned Pacific Solution and despite a recent back flip to reintroduce offshore processing they have failed to reintroduce the Pacific Solution. The vast majority of Australians are angry and frustrated that people smugglers are back in business.

TheViking:

30 Aug 2012 11:30:48am

No sane person says that there are not many terrible places in the world where violence, hunger and disease are the norm and that people want to escape form these areas. Just as no decent person does not feel empathy and sympathy and deep compassion for these people BUT that is not the point: Australia cannot and should not just accept just anyone who chooses to claim refugee status come here permanently regardless of how they arrive: therefore the very premise of the "Go Back to Where You Came From" is a LIE!

The simple facts are:

1: 5000 years of human history is clear: No culture can stand the large scale integration of a completely foreign culture without collapse and anarchy (albeit anarchy being part of the Green/socialist agenda). To accept large numbers of un documented people without limit or control would result in the collapse of Australian society. As anyone knows Sydney knows the "elephant in the room" cultural enclaves where white/anglo saxon/Chrisitan/non muslims are met with overt violence. We have reached the population "tipping point" and just like it did with the immigration of the more culturally similar Greek/Italian migrants, it will take several generations to "blend". But go past the tipping point and will have no retreat from an anarchic apartheid society!

2: As no country (Australia included!) seems to be willing to stem the arms trade someone is going to have to fight to rid these 3rd world areas of the, usually religious, fanatics who make life hell. And yes that means that someone is going to have to take up arms and kill to do this! Perhaps some of that sacrifice should be borne by the people of that country i.e. they are going to have to fight for their "freedom" just as we and our forefathers and their forefathers ad infinitum did and still do today!

Spin Baby, Spin:

30 Aug 2012 11:41:58am

"compassion of three" - ah... what compassion other than that issued forth from their mouths berating others? It's compassionate to do something practical, like adopting a parentless child. So of these three "compassionates", are any moving forward to do something practical? Or is it just more mouthing off for them? Compassion is in your actions, not in your thoughts.

Alex:

30 Aug 2012 11:50:58am

I watched the programme last night and like so many people, I feel badly for these poor wretches living in such terrible conditions.but, do I want increased numbers of them brought into my country for resettlement at great cost to Australians, no I do not!

I have seen first hand what is happening to other countries in Europe that have taken in great numbers of these people, and it is not pretty. If you doubt what I say, look at some of the online stories regarding France, Italy and in particular Belgium, where the whole culture is being swamped by Islamic people who want to change everything to the way that they think that things should be.

Wake up Australia. We can increase aid tenfold and help in that way, but bringing in thousands of illiterate Islamic people to our country is not the answer. I don't want this and neither does any of the average hard working Aussies I know.

Give Aid but protect what is left of our Australian culture while we can.

somon:

30 Aug 2012 11:51:17am

I posted my (flawed) suggestion to the sbs website, but i am going to spam it here because i put my limited brain into it instead of working like i should be doing:

it is true that it isn't practical or reasonable for australia to accept resettlement of 40 million refugees. But no one is suggesting that. What those supporting refugees want is for Australia to quickly and humanely resettle all the genuine refugees that arrive in australia - that would be 4 or 5 thousand a year.

No one wants people drowning in the timor sea, but the hard truth is we have limited control over that. We can make treatment of arrivals so inhumane that people wouldn;t bother taking the trip. This would mean making conditions as bad as those that people would rather risk drowning than stay in. This isn't a real option. If we were to allow that then we are on a very bad journey for everyone.

The only real option we have is to make the official UNHCR route plausible, because at the moment it isn't. You are just as likely to die of old age as be resettled, and while waiting to die, you dont get to live a life of any humanity.

Malaysia has the most refugees in our near region. There are 85,000 UNHCR assesed refugees in Malaysia (http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e4884c6.html). These numbers are not that great. Australia's immigration intake is currently about 170,000 people, with ~14,000 refugees. It seems to me that australia could increase its refugee intake up to say, 60,000 and cut its skilled migration intake to balance it. But we probably need only half that number to give the UNHCR prgramme credibility.

At the moment Malaysia resettles no refugees. We could maybe get Malaysia to agree to resettle say 1 refugee for every say 5? we resettle from Malaysia. It is also not unimaginable that other countries in the region may agree to similar programmes. Few would risk their life to get on a boat if they had a realistic chance of being assessed and resettled through the UNHCR.

This might be difficult but it would be something like what we would do if we were serious about "stop the boats" and it wasn;t just a political game. Also people must realise that this current refugee crisis will likely subside eventually, just as the vietnam crisis of the 70s and 80s did.

daniel:

30 Aug 2012 12:32:31pm

"It seems to me that australia could increase its refugee intake up to say, 60,000 and cut its skilled migration intake to balance it."

You must be joking. Unless you want to destroy the country, you do not cut skilled migration that contributes to the economy, for refugee intake. Humanitarian interests are great. But the Australian people come first. Causing harm to Australia and the Australian people in this way is not a good idea in any sense.

ScottBE:

30 Aug 2012 11:55:39am

Excellent opinion Jonathan. Thank you. Very timely indeed as the show progresses.

The premise of your opinion is can people change their minds. I have been committed to helping refugee applicants (I believe this is a more apt phrase than "asylum seekers" or the disgusting "Illegal Immigrants" of Howard) for decades. Yet I have been torn throughout this time by the question of how best to help people in desperation. The recent expert panel caused me to accept that my preferred beliefs may need to be compromised, yet yesterday by John Menadue and Arja Keski-Nummi revealed how many important areas of the recommendations had been neglected.

It is important to realise appropriate compromises in order to achieve reasonable agreement, if not consensus, on management of this ongoing crisis. And it is a crisis for those who are in such a desperate plight, as well as for the political debate here in Aus.

Watching the challenges to the three obstinate participants is extremely frustrating. As a lifelong observer of human behaviour I perceive subtleties which say much about Reith, Anderson and Smith.

Peter Reith suffers much guilt. He cannot betray his history by recanting because he will have to admit his culpability and this would rupture his self-belief. He sees the desperation, but make no mistake, he is not driven by political rationalism; he is stopped by guilt. Thus he cannot change his mind publicly, but will suffer for the rest of his life because he knows now that he was wrong.

Gary Anderson is vacuous and reactionary. He will change and might even change his political attachment to the Greens if he responds to these insights. Yet he is stubborn because he has invested in his beliefs. As for Michael Smith, his whole career depends upon him hating and reviling refugee applicants. His fragile, self centred perspective desperately clings to a necessity to hold his expressed opinions. If he changes his mind, he will have to find a new job, a new lifestyle, a whole new place in his mind in which to live. He is most like the people he is meeting because he is besieged and will have to create a new life elsewhere. This experience is for him similar to refugee applicants boarding a boat to cross stormy seas. And he lacks the courage to examine this journey. Thus he must remain unchanged. Too much to lose.

As for the remaining Alan, Catherine and Imogen; they have had no challenge to their beliefs; only reinforcement. I believe this provides ample evidence of the underlying mistake of the anti-"illegal immigrant" brigade. Yet will this change their minds? Yes, we have three examples of why people hold to their mistaken beliefs. But everyone holds to their opinions more fiercely, despite evidence, if they perceive they are wrong.

danben7:

30 Aug 2012 11:58:53am

If someone has $10,000 to pay a boat smuggler in Indonesia, they've got $10,000 in Indonesia. Enough to set them selves up pretty nicely. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with supporting them, just that travelling over the other countries makes their status of "refugee" extremely questionable. If you're a genuine refugee you don't pick and choose. If you pick and choose, you're an immigrant.

somon:

30 Aug 2012 12:47:30pm

They can't buy a house or sign a contract or work legally in Indonesia, as they have no legal standing as a person, so how do they "set themselves up"? I guess, they could get into an illegal trade like drugs.

danben7:

30 Aug 2012 12:03:49pm

I am all for refugees and Australia supporting them, taking them in, and even welcoming them as new citizens if they so choose. But what I simply can't get over is the fact that Australia is so isolated, and so far away from other countries. To get here, you have to either travel through, or bypass plenty of safe, welcoming and adequate countries along the way. How can I be supportive of some refugees when they are picking and choosing where do go?If I was escaping from a murderer let's say, and I run to my neighbours house for help, I don't look it over and think "mmm, not quite what I was hoping for, I might go one house over".

somon:

30 Aug 2012 12:45:44pm

To extend your murderer analogy.

You likely know your neighbours. What if you thought your next door neighbour wont help you, but Bob down the street would. Would you go to the nearest house or the one you thought most likely to help you, even if it meant a longer journey thorugh the back yards of the neighbours you don't think will help?

bakeryHill:

30 Aug 2012 1:27:54pm

Did you really mean Julia instead of Bob? I've heard her house is a free for all. Tell her a woeful story and she'll open her house up to you. You might have to stay in the basement but if you get sick of that, just put on a turn and she'll listen.

peeved:

30 Aug 2012 2:04:23pm

Good point. But is it refuge for safety reasons, which should be the foremost concern given that his life has been threatened, or is more consideration given to the quality of hospitality offered at the other end ie. how well the fridge is stocked.

I'm guessing that assylum boat arrivals when asked about their purpose for been in Aust, dont mention the fridge but say a lot about safety.

To be clear I am not against people seeking assylum just skeptical about the intentions of some. Gillard has done a good job taking on the reccomendations of an independant report.

When in Greece many years back I met a local who said he had lived in Aust for a period of his life. I asked how he enjoyed it and why had he gone. His response was that it was just ok, but the money was good 'cause everyone knew you could live off the govt. Ouch

Probably everyone has heard of such stories. Of course it doesnt apply to each case but at the same time dont ignore the gaps.

peter d jones:

30 Aug 2012 12:04:28pm

Nobody suggests taking 45 million people. Most will go home once things settle down, as in Syria where Turkey is coping with far more refugees every day than we are - and Jordan. Here it is a question of funding the agencies helping out, like the UNHCR.The second line is adequate support to resolve conflicts where possible so people do not have to leave - some problems, like the Hazara in Afghanistan, are intractable - but I am always puzzled why we have so much money for the military but not money for reconstruction. For asylum seekers in general, it's a global issue that has to be discussed at a global level by countries able and willing to take their share - which includes Australia, a country where 98% of us are descended from 'boat' people. Thank heavens we at least have one party with principles in the Greens but the ALP's tragedy has always been that underlying working class racism since the days of the Eureka stockade.

jp:

30 Aug 2012 12:07:34pm

When I look in the mirror, this is what I see.

I think we are comfronted with a problem that steeps very deep as humans. We are innately 'resistant' to give away the treasures we poccess. In this case, it is seen that to allow many people from problematic nations, will inevitably alter the face of the comfortable position we currently reside in. The concern is that we will in effect will be giving away what we have.

We live in a wealthy nation where every creature comfort can be met without too much effort and we dont understand how it is that people from other nations cant do the same. The fact that they are no where near as 'advanced' or 'civilised' as us suggests there must be something wrong with them. It genuinally baffles us as to how the practices such as genital mutilation or the machetiing of limbs can take place on small children.

We recognise that the misfortunate are not in isolation and to help everyone would be to set a precendent for helping all the countless others.

Then we consider the impact of that. The prospect that our nation, our culture, our current high standing in this modern society that would then endure the consequences of so many people with so many problems. We ask how can we avoid our nation been re shaped when the likes of genital mutilation is considered a 'norm'.

That's why I hate this issue. It does illustrate the ugly truth about us humans. In many respects we are prepared to look away because we have such little power in it all. We would like to help but feel equally that they should help themselves.

That's why the likes of Reith are popular. He's the resiliant type who can stand on the front line and turn a blind eye on the attrocities that surround him. He does our dirty work for us.

Its a tricky one I know. My small contribution is to provide funding for aid wherever possible for items that contribute towards education, clean water, food etc. Education and sexual equality is the key.

The best solution would be to assist them with creating their own havens

Reinhard (not Gina):

shana:

There's just too many of them! 22,000 in 4 years is just plain crazy! Stop the boats and pick from the refugee camps? fine! how does one decided you and you..but not you?

So many millions, why don't they opt for change in their own countries seeing as there are so many of them.Most of the gangs are ethnic groups..they're even in the bikie gangs now!

The world is overpopulated..it won't be long before we are too! then, like the tamil's they want their own piece of australia..and the sharia's want their own courts.

Oh way to opt for a different life for sure! they don't want a 'different life'...they want the handouts our welfare system provides!

We send billions to these countries in aid..why does nothing ever change!! the rate things are going we'll be as poor as most of Europe and most definitely the likes of the countries they're running away from!

Mark James:

30 Aug 2012 1:15:04pm

shana, it was obviously much better when Howard had the human misery problem locked behind razor wire, and banned the media from it so we could lead our relaxed and comfortable lives oblivious to the world around us.

And I'm sure Tony Abbott will simply turn back the human misery so we won't be confronted by it anymore. He'll offshore the suffering so it happens in somebody else's neighbourhood, and we can all be relaxed and comfortable again.

And what? We send them all that money in aid and the ungrateful wretches still suffer? How dare they?

K Brown:

30 Aug 2012 12:40:56pm

The tear jerking images on "Go Back to Where You Came From" add little light to the refugee debate. Where is the philosophical argument and public policy debate about how we select refugees to fill our 13, 500 person humanitarian immigration quota from 30+ million displaced asylum seekers around the World. Should a Hazara man who can afford to pay a people smuggler and arrive by boat be given priority over those we witnessed in greater need when there are 2.7 million Hazara still living in Afghanistan. Sadly, sectarian, ethnic and inter-tribal violence is the way of life throughout the Middle East.

We need a hard headed approach that minimises harm. That means first taking refugees experienceing the greatest level of harm and adopting policies that deter people from getting on boats and drowning on the way to Australia.

FJ:

30 Aug 2012 12:58:27pm

The review asssumes that Catherine Deveney has a mind to change, which would be a surprise to anyone who's read her old Age columns. As you say, none of them are going to change their minds. The whole show sounds pretty pointless.

Reinhard:

30 Aug 2012 4:18:45pm

They also assumed that Reith, Smith and Anderson would have a heart to touch.The point of the show was not to change their minds, but to take them out of their comfort zones, and show them for what they really are, clueless, loudmouthed, right-whingers.

Maxx:

30 Aug 2012 1:02:55pm

The problem won't be fixed by tear jerking TV programs featuring a bunch of 'celebrities'. The world is haemorrhaging and the band-aid solutions being proposed here only address the symptoms and do nothing to fix the problem. This is a global problem and it needs a global solution. Resettlement of people should be the avenue of absolute last resort. Accepting anything less simply prolongs and exacerbates the problem.

cat amongst the pigeons:

30 Aug 2012 1:16:06pm

Last night's show was interesting.I learned just how tough and determined those people are in the face of adversity.Australians pride themselves on being tough but I think they have confused themselves with previous generations and I doubt that most would be able to cope without mod cons like electricity for more than a few days.

davidlb:

30 Aug 2012 1:20:51pm

Just wondering if people read the editorial before making comment? Seems the central theme was that peoples minds will not be changed by circumstance, especially in regards personal bias and political agenda. Then read the forums; seems peoples minds will not be changed by an editorial as the responders are mainly pushing a preset agenda.

To the writer of the editorial - your thesis seems to be holding true; a documentary or written piece will not change personal bias or political agenda; and this simple fact applies to every facet of humanity, not just for those in the political spectrum.

RobP:

30 Aug 2012 2:08:35pm

Good observation - people nowadays are on a conveyor belt, which is taking them where they need to go rather than where they want to go. I'm sure all six journeymen and women in the GBWYCM program would rather not be in Kabul and Mogadishu, but their being there is an opportunity for them to address assumptions and viewpoints they have made and collected over their lives. It's really a completion of their past-life cycle/s. I'd be surprised if all of them remain unchanged by the rather harsh/poignant/uncomfortable experiences they've had during the show.

John of WA:

30 Aug 2012 1:55:36pm

Coming to this article rather late in the day and reading the comments thus far shows just how woeful the commentary that passes for debate in this country has become. There is a long way between (soon to be) 20,000 and 45 million, but let's all focus on that last number and then trumpet how we're doing all we can, poor struggling country that we are (in other words, Dear reffo, I'm sad that you and your kids have to rot in a desert camp, but as long as you do it over there where I don't have to watch I'll get over it). Now, what time is the footy on?

jusme:

30 Aug 2012 2:00:00pm

yeah to change such minds you have to address two issues. the worry that it's going to cost them, or that they'll miss out because of the presence of refugees, and show that there's something in it for them.

i reckon it's a genetic hangover from prehistoric times when you had to fight, steal, run and hoard to survive. evolution is changing that, the abundance of everything is obvious and if anything endangers that abundance, it'll be war, famine, depression, disease, natural disasters etc.

a handful of refugees in a country of 22 million won't cause or worsen any of these real problems should they hit. the fear is irrational, but that's the nature of most fear.

i see what i assume to be middle easterners very occasionally and unless i asked, i'd never know if they came by boat, air or fallopian tube.

castlenau:

30 Aug 2012 2:01:47pm

There always seem to be the same arguments about asylum seekers. Perhaps someone can answer a few of my questions around this issue that never seem to be tackled by the media, politicians or bloggers. Talking of Palmer's solution re seats on planes arriving in Australia - last I heard the individual payment to people smugglers for travel to Australia by boat was between $7,000 and $10,000 - a lot more than the cost of an airfare from Asia to Australia.

Obviously if you don't have the individual documentation, and you are in a UN refugee camp in Asia, you can't catch a plane for asylum in Australia without a visa, whether or not you have destroyed your documents. However if you have been processed by the UN as a refugee what type of documentation have you received?

Is this documentation enough to get a passport or buy a false passport and apply for a visa, especially in parts of Asia where scrutiny of documentation probably isn't that sound, and bribery always seems to achieve results. Isn't there an option for refugees to live in the community in Indonesia and work? (ie their address is not a refugee camp). We never get to hear or see exactly what the day to day life is for refugees is in Indonesia or Malaysia, only to hear they live in abject misery in refugee camps. Always it's emotional arguments, never anything heard about the practicalities of daily life as a refugee.

Why are some of these people who have the money for boat passage not coming by plane and using that type of documentation? Why do those with documentation chose to come by boat? If there are over 65,000 documented illegals in Australia who have arrived by plane - and in this case they are illegal as they have overstayed their visa requirements ? so why isn't that path being used by other educated, informed and presumably cashed up refugees?

Do you think it could be that asylum seekers coming by boat are perhaps genuine refugees? Or are they just not aware of other illegal ways to achieve their aims of living in a free country. Seems the risk is akin to getting on a leaky boat and possibly drowning.

I'd really like to know the answer to this - doesn't seem that anyone wants to talk about or discuss it as a possibility to avoid being drowned at sea on your way to Australia. I know our border protection is supposed to be excellent, but hey 65,000+ are living, and presumably working here illegally, aren?t they?

somon:

the 65,000 have mostly overstayed their tourist or working hol visas. they are from places like britain, sweden, USA, etc.

the refugees would not get a visa by virue of the fact that they are refugees so they are not legitimate tourists, espeially if they tried to use any UNHCR document that states they are a refugee

the main deterent to the boat journey is not the cost, it is the risk of death. many more people would come if they could pay for actaul safe passage to australia.

in indonesia, malaysia, refugees are not given any residency rights. so they cant live and work legally. buying a fake passport is an option but is very expensive. if you have a passport ypou could sell it and use the money to buy a boat trip though. but 9 in 10 have no passport.

Harry:

30 Aug 2012 2:05:28pm

For me it is simple, stop the war...get our troops out and everyone elses. No wars..please. I am sick of hearing abour the terrorists..it is about the poppy fields...Stop bombing, shooting and inflicting our views on people. STOP the WARS....

Barj:

30 Aug 2012 2:11:53pm

Once upon a time they had a solution to the problem in America. Of course, the Yanks have not live up to the solution in more recent times but that does not mean we cannot give it a try. It goes like this:

Marty:

30 Aug 2012 2:18:48pm

I underastand the reasons that people try to get to australia and would do the same if in the same situation and I defy any of the shock jocks etc to say that they woudl do anything different . and while I understand the reasons there are a few things that refugees need to understand as well so from the top

Not everyone want so to be your friend. I for one have no desire to get to knwo you , your culture or your releigion Not everyone wants to help you . I woudl not cross the street to assist you regardless fo the trouble you are in at the time deal with it yourselfNot everyone cares about your home country or the troubles there . All we expect is that you leave that Sh1t behind when you get here

If you were white and christian and were escaping some backwater of humanity form Africa or such we we would be far more welcoming , you are not so we are not , deal with it

somon:

30 Aug 2012 8:19:21pm

For your your scenario of the football game to reflect the situtaion, a ground official would have to come out and stop your line from entering as the game goes on and you are expected to stand there waiting until you die from old age. then some one offers to help you climb over the fence, but the fence is pretty high so you might fall and even if you get over the fence you'll be locked in the canteen by the ground staff until they can work out if you have a fake ticket. oh, and if you stay in the line there is a risk some one might force you round the corner back to where some bikies are waiting to kill you which is the whole reason you went to the football in the first place. and your kids definitely wont get an education in the football game line.

jellybeans:

Gratuitous Adviser:

30 Aug 2012 2:34:29pm

I?m over this discussion and argument. I?m over the name calling and categorising. I?m over the political correctness and positioning. I?m over the UNHCR and the hypocritical and patronising opinions of their representatives considering Australia is such a large and disproportionate contributor to the organisation and finally, I would welcome a review of the UNHCR Convention of Refugees to determine if it has been corrupted by vested and criminal interests and the most vile of all individuals, the do-gooder.

No matter the relentless propaganda by those proposing the open door to Australia, I can only disagree and use my vote in a manner that I see is the best way forward for Australia. The ALP took a sensible decision by going back to a fairer (removed the advantage when they came by boat and paid to be refugees) method of handling illegal immigrants and I hope that they maintain this policy going forward.

Eugenius:

30 Aug 2012 2:38:24pm

Readers should note that the rate or number of asylum seekers is directly related to conflicts currently raging in the world - NOT, as some would have us believe, Australia's abundance of generosity and wealth.

The more wars being fought, the more refugees being created.

Simply put, our domestic policies will not affect the rate of asylum seekers, while our treatment of them will affect the way we live with ourselves as fellow humans.

To stem the tide, perhaps we should withdraw our troops from their homes and everywhere else where we are aiding and abetting a bogus "war on terror."

The Middle East, incl Afghanistan, is richer than Australia in resources, but they cannot access their wealth as foreigners continue to invade their lands or install proxy leaders under the guise of freedom and democracy.

david r:

30 Aug 2012 2:43:19pm

While it may not change minds hopefully it will make people better appreciate the complexity of the issue. There is no simple policy solution. Sending asylum seekers to Nauru may "stop the boats" but it won't stop Hazaras in Afghanistan being persecuted.

I don't pretend to have the answers. A range of policies need to be put in place regarding asylum seekers in Australia. However, these should all be based on principles of compassion and human rights.

AL:

30 Aug 2012 3:11:24pm

Policy should never be based on emotion or gut feeling, nor solely on compassion, guilt, fear or bigotry. People simplify this discussion and misunderstand the purpose of an immigration policy. It is a policy covering many thousands of people from many different regions and cannot be determined on the basis of individuals.

Walter:

30 Aug 2012 3:21:24pm

I have just read of the tragedy of five Australian soldiers who have today died in Afghanistan. They, like many of their Coalition partners have paid the ultimate price whilst endeavouring to help Afghans.

Whilst our soldiers are fighting and dying in Afghanistan, we have significant numbers of predominantly young Afghan males fleeing Afghanistan and seeking refugee status in Australia. They claim they are fleeing persecution, yet they leave behind their mothers, their sisters, their wives, their young and their old. Presumably it is OK for the women to face persecution, but not the young males.

Some say that the young males flee to avoid military service. They flee to Australia to enjoy the Australian lifestyle and are welcomed by left wing cretins.

These young Afghan males are cowards. We should put them on a plane and return them to Afghanistan. Let them be met at the airport by Afghan military, and let them be taken to a military boot camp to grow some balls.

Surely it is incumbent on all young males to stay and build their nation. Most Afghans do stay. The cowards flee.

Chookman:

30 Aug 2012 8:27:51pm

Simplistic solution - complex problem. You assume that all Afghanis are the same - a bit like former Yugoslavia - or Australia's aborigines.The Hazari who are fleeing are being vilified by other Afghan tribes.

Sam:

30 Aug 2012 3:43:10pm

Why would Reith change his mind? To do so would be an admission of his sins when a Minister. Until he can honestly admit that Tampa, Children Overboard and We'll Decide Who Comes Here were all politically motivated to win votes... hell will freeze over before he changes his mind. He is in denial.

It was never about saving lives from drowning Peter. It was always about votes.

Good to see you squirm with fear in the real world. Shame on you Peter! And yes, you do have blood on your hands.

jason :

Sam:

30 Aug 2012 5:28:57pm

Why not? I was born and raised here mate. So yes, I also get a say. At least you have the guts to show who you are and not spin it like Howard and peter did.

And for what it's worth, if a stranger knocked on my door for help, I'd help them. It's the right thing to do. The truth is that if we dumped Petey in Afghanistan with no contact with our Consulate or passport etc... and his only option was a boat trip... he'd take it. I wonder if these pesky boat people were white New Zealanders or white Zimbabweans???

worrierqueen:

30 Aug 2012 4:00:54pm

You've really got to admire Australia's xenophobia thatwe are willing, nay determined, to pay billions and billions of $ just to ensure we cause as much suffering to desperate refugees as we can, well desperate non-white refugees anyway.

jason :

aelious:

30 Aug 2012 4:03:02pm

Lets look at this issue in the polar way that it the way it is portrayed in the media...so either the past Labor policy was correct or the Coalition position is correct. We pride ourselves on being informed & rational in our viewpoints (eg We can but assume that Angry Anderson & Catherine Deveny both believe that their viewpoint are factually based) Now exposure to the actual reality (the hard data on the ground) should test which viewpoint is correct..after all this is the Rational & scientific approach & method. So based on this some of these people SHOULD have changes their views (even if but a little)....but NO.

Now I don't know about you folks... but I find this MORE than a worry..either we are brainwashed or just plain stupid.

But all this fuss & ado over the "boat people"..who are a tiny fraction of our population intake & most of whom have been found to be REAL refugees anyway..ie they meet the international criteria..this is FACT!

But no ado about the 60,000 other people who are actually illegally in Australia..but then most of these are from NZ, USA or Western Europe.....Hmmmmm.....good old Aussie Racism at play???

Now as for refugees...well Albert Einstein & Bob Marley were refugees as were Mika, Sigmund Freud, Max Bom (grandfather of Oliver Newton-John), Thomas Mann, etc, etc..all famous people, all contributed greatly to the human condition, all had the ambition & the guts to risk death to avoid death

..well the "boat people " are the same

..they are actually the type of people we need..& the facts relating to those who have been able to settle here prove this...not that the media will tell you this..Reith is in a position to know this to be true..as for Anderson..well I guess that he is too full of self importance & too ill-educated to known this to be true.

So if the "boat people" ado is not based on the facts ..why is it pushed by the media..well easy..FEAR & MORE FEAR..you see a fearful population is a lot easier to control ( govern) than one confident & feeling secure.

Looked at another way... today the "boat people" are undesirables..... tomorrow it will be some of you rabbits!

worrierqueen:

30 Aug 2012 4:07:38pm

On the very same day there are two articles, one about the deaths of our soldiers in Afghanistan, another about how we persecute refugees. Can readers not see how these are linked? Some say refugees are caused by push factors. Well who caused the push? It wasn't martians that invaded Afghanistan. How about we grow up and for once be responsible for our actions?

Drum Major:

30 Aug 2012 5:06:17pm

After reading Peter Reith's Drum article earlier in the week, I watched this show fully expecting to have my preconceived ideas about him confirmed. I have to say, however, that Mr Reith did himself a disservice in that article. It's been obvious that he has been moved by what he has heard. So too, Angry Anderson, whose silence seems to say so much. And Michael Smith, whose hard line stance was finally shifted by a 12 year old boy. Whether he actually realised that his thoughts about adopting the child were really about using his money to help the boy 'jump a queue' (which is what I understand he rails against), I don't know, but I found it compelling to watch and proof that once you humanize someone, it becomes much more difficult to watch.

I think, however, that the person who has changed the least is Catherine Deveny. Because, although she is a compassionate and caring person, she continues to be unrealistic about what one country can do despite seeing the enormity of the problem.

What I would love is one final episode that puts these people together in a room and asks them to come up with a workable policy based on what they've seen and what they think we should do. Then perhaps, Catherine would realise that what she wants to do just isn't feasible. And perhaps Peter might be willing to be just a little more compassionate.

Thanks SBS and thanks to all of the participants who didn't have to sign up for the experience but did. I don't know if you'll change anyone's mind, but if you make us (and yourselves) think, it can only be a good thing.

Yoda:

30 Aug 2012 7:03:09pm

My sentiments exactly Drum Major. Having read Peter Reith asking "How can anyone not understand the reason why these people take to the sea in leaky boats" and having seen the compassion in Angry and Mike when confronted with 'real' people not the figment of someone's demonision of them -there is hope.Hope that we stop using these poor people as political weapons or objects of hate and distrust.Hope that some good sence will emerge between the idealsitc but unrealsitic thinking of Catherine Deveny and the Greens and the hard liners.

What I find difficult to understand is why Peter, Anger and Mike had to see the situation these people are in for themselves before coming to 'humanise' them.I would have thought ones own intelligence and a little research would show the human tragedy of Somalia, Afghanistan and elsewhere=- as well as the conflicts in Sri Lanka leading to Tamils seeking a better life in Australia.

Yoda:

30 Aug 2012 8:13:57pm

I think you may be right about the 'reality' thing. Take the global debt problem-most see the danger in too much Government debt but few see the even bigger danger in corporate/private/bank debt which is 8-10 times larger- same with climate change.

Michael:

30 Aug 2012 6:14:33pm

I don't, for one moment, feel guilty about being compassionate to the people who seek asylum in Australia. These are all people who would never be accepted by normal channels - nor do they have the opportunity to do so. These people represent less than 1 percent of all people who enter our country each year. They come from deeply impoverished circumstances and deeply cruel situations.

No true terrorists come by this mode of transport. It's simply too dangerous.

What hurts my heart the most is the simple fact that our governments will openly - and actively seek out - people who have a degree in medicine. These poorer countries with many, many times the size of our own population and not even close to our own GDP, pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to train doctors only for countries like Australia to poach them - because it costs us to much to train our own. Do I blame these people for coming to Australia? How could I possibly do so when we simply live in the most fortunate country on Earth! ... Why wouldn't they want to live here?

The point is this! We willingly and openly seek out highly educated people from these countries to fill a void that our own governments are failing to provide - people who cannot be replaced in the countries from which they come from.

If we can do this so coldly then I can see no reason why we should not move to an on-shore processing model for all boat people!

Sarah:

I will reserve my judgement and comments until I see the final episode and the follow up 'Insight" programme on Friday night.

However I was struck ny the awful situation in Somalia- a country torn apart by what I believe are Muslim militants.

I wonder what other Muslim nations like Saudi, Qatar and others can do to help their brothers. They not not seem to have any problem in interveneing in Libya and Syria- where at least there was some resemblance of order and most people were fed and housed.I am all for helping as many as we can and detest the generalisation and demonising of asylum seekers by many Australians but I think other nations, particularly those who share the religion and culture and are wealthy to boot, have a responsibility too.

Maxx:

30 Aug 2012 8:19:49pm

Can someone explain to me how resettling 7,000 or 100,000 people out of 45,000,000 (at todays estimate) will solve the underlying problem? What happens if or when another 45,000,000 become refugees? How do all you bleeding hearts explain the denial of resettlement to person number 7,001 or 100,001? This is a UN problem, NOT Australia's problem. Harden up!

Mr Grace:

30 Aug 2012 9:51:14pm

It really doesn't change , naive opened mouthed public fed camera perspectives of celebrities crying , sympathetic conversations and millions a massed behind their televisions. We are the Most over governed brain washed culture .Right in the centre of all this finger pointing and controversy is the enjoyment we all feel " thank god it's not me".Nations evolve and others are destroyed migration and asylum is as natural as the ocean tide.

Peter of Melbourne:

30 Aug 2012 10:53:39pm

The basic fact is we cannot take anymore in without extremely careful planning.

None of the current crop of politicians have shown they have even the slightest ability in forward planning on this issue so it is a dead duck and should be allowed to sink to bottom of the deepest oceanic trench, along with those stupid enough to pay people smugglers.

When, if, there is such time as this country has a real management team in place who can actually plan out mass resettlement without any major negative effects on those here already then the issue can be raised again.

On a final note, maybe some of the bleeding hearts should spend 10 minutes actually listening to what an unfettered refugee policy could mean for this country and their children.

Rod L:

John Coochey:

31 Aug 2012 6:29:55am

What the SBS documentary does show (present tense because it is available on MP3) is the palatial conditions on Christmas Island especially for women and children, even the refugee advocate made a spontaneous exclamation to that effect. The conditions are better than for most Australian Service Personnel.

True Blue Ozzie:

31 Aug 2012 7:49:58am

It's clear the UNCHR is not capable of for filling it's role and duties with the amount of true refugee's stuck in make shift camps with no hope of ever getting out! These are the refugee's I welcome to Australia, and when they arrive should not get any extra support than your average Australian on Centre Link payments, forget the smokes and phones and those perks Australians are not entitled two! Australia should process the refudgess at there camps, forget the "boat people" I believe they are silent cue jumpers, and the show has not changed mind on that point.

The "do Gooders" have to realise Australia can not support endless numbers of refugee's, we have to have balance pure and simple, along with ASIO clearance's of these people.

The show on SBS did'nt address in detail why so many want to come to Australia? instead of other countries under the UNCHR treaty.

Or how these "boat people" are getting money to pay for there boat ride's to Australia? And why are they not spending that money on food etc?

Very important questions that should have been address in the show, because for many Australians this is a hudge sticking point when it comes to the Illegal boat people.

I'm all for a balanced numbers being bought from the camps to Australia, but no not the boat people.

Latest Episode

Hot Topic

The Prime Minister has announced Australia will be expanding its military role in Iraq for up to two years. Tony Abbott has signed off on sending 300 Australian soldiers for a joint mission with New Zealand.

It's a fundamental human yearning to be a part of something bigger than one's self, and maybe that's what drove my mate Ash to die, far from home, in a bloody foreign war against Islamic State, writes C August Elliott.